UK Blocks Microsoft’s $69B Activision Deal(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
UK Blocks Microsoft’s $69B Activision Deal
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-26/microsoft-s-69-billion-activision-deal-blocked-by-uk-watchdog
578 コメント
I'm glad with this decision. Not sure the exact logic makes sense, but in general the top US tech companies (Google, Amazon, MS, Meta, Apple) are too big. They wield huge power and can snuff out entire startup sectors with loss-leading products.
The argument is always 'but we don't have a monopoly in this artificially small sector X', however I don't think that argument is the one we should be looking at when the companies involved are $1trillion+.
Can we prove exact consumer harm in each case? No. However, I think most people can accept that there's a risk to consumers, markets, and democracy if companies become too big.
Edit. Seeing a lot of comments saying UK couldn't function without Microsoft which kind of supports my point.
The argument is always 'but we don't have a monopoly in this artificially small sector X', however I don't think that argument is the one we should be looking at when the companies involved are $1trillion+.
Can we prove exact consumer harm in each case? No. However, I think most people can accept that there's a risk to consumers, markets, and democracy if companies become too big.
Edit. Seeing a lot of comments saying UK couldn't function without Microsoft which kind of supports my point.
Its extremely frustrating how we let the tech companies get to be this large, such that now we really have to consider blocking every acquisition, even though this one in particular I think wouldn't be all that bad and may actually be a positive for consumers. Activision is an unusually cruel and extremely horrible company, whereas the Xbox Division of Microsoft has been one of maybe only a couple "great" stewards of the gaming industry for consumers (Epic is also a great company, but beyond those two when it comes to major developers/publishers there's far more bad than good). I'm genuinely of the opinion that all of Xbox, Activision, and their customers will be worse-off without this deal.
This is a HackerNews Arm Chair Quarterbacking Stretch, but I think a really positive move for Microsoft would be to spin-off Xbox into a separate company. I can't imagine the division is all that profitable; its grown to confer practically zero positive network effects for Microsoft's other businesses. Culturally its got to be the weirdest thing Microsoft does nowadays. This AB deal likely single-handedly increases the valuation of the division by, jeeze, 50%? Maybe more.
This is a HackerNews Arm Chair Quarterbacking Stretch, but I think a really positive move for Microsoft would be to spin-off Xbox into a separate company. I can't imagine the division is all that profitable; its grown to confer practically zero positive network effects for Microsoft's other businesses. Culturally its got to be the weirdest thing Microsoft does nowadays. This AB deal likely single-handedly increases the valuation of the division by, jeeze, 50%? Maybe more.
>Epic is also a great company
No, it's not. It does the exact same shit that Activision does except it targets an even younger more vulnerable demographic. Did you forget about this? https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...
No, it's not. It does the exact same shit that Activision does except it targets an even younger more vulnerable demographic. Did you forget about this? https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...
I don't agree with the FTC's conclusion on that case, and while it doesn't reflect positively on Epic, its not nearly as negative as the myriad of things other gaming companies do on the regular (lootboxes being a big one, which are still very common in Activision, EA, & Valve games, among others). Epic is one of the good ones; that doesn't mean they always do good things.
> Epic is one of the good ones
Maybe if your only comparison is Activision and EA. When you consider all the dark patterns Fortnite employs to encourage logging playtime and making purchases, they're only separated from those others by degrees. Stacked up against developers that largely avoid those patterns (FromSoft, Nintendo, CDPR, etc), Epic is most certainly closer to the "bad" side of the spectrum.
Maybe if your only comparison is Activision and EA. When you consider all the dark patterns Fortnite employs to encourage logging playtime and making purchases, they're only separated from those others by degrees. Stacked up against developers that largely avoid those patterns (FromSoft, Nintendo, CDPR, etc), Epic is most certainly closer to the "bad" side of the spectrum.
Yeah, I have no idea how GP thinks Epic is the gold standard. There are way better developers with extremely successful games that don't have this bullshit: Naughty Dog (Last of Us, Uncharted), FromSoft (mentioned, Elden Ring), Portkey Games (Hogwarts Legacy), Guerrilla Games (Horizon), Insomniac (Spider-Man), Santa Monica Studios (God of War), Sucker Punch (Ghost of Tsushima), Rockstar (Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto[0]) and many others. Epic is near the bottom of the list, not the top.
[0] The online has micro-transactions but even if it didn't exist, the single player experience is well worth the money alone and is on par with all the others.
[0] The online has micro-transactions but even if it didn't exist, the single player experience is well worth the money alone and is on par with all the others.
Listing Microsoft and Epic as good guys is wack. "Disagreeing" that Epic's practices are clear-cut intentional abuse had me searching for a punchline.
> I have no idea how GP thinks Epic is the gold standard.
Where, exactly, did you read "gold standard"? No one said that. No one hinted to that. The words stated were "great company" and "one of the good ones".
Where, exactly, did you read "gold standard"? No one said that. No one hinted to that. The words stated were "great company" and "one of the good ones".
Epic is neither of those so it doesn't matter.
>Epic is also a great company, but beyond those two when it comes to major developers/publishers there's far more bad than good
I listed all major developers, many of which are owned by mega publishers like Sony.
>Epic is also a great company, but beyond those two when it comes to major developers/publishers there's far more bad than good
I listed all major developers, many of which are owned by mega publishers like Sony.
Hogwarts Legacy certainly looks good, but the mobile game hogwarts mystery(or something like that) by the same studio was full of dark patterns and also devoid of actual gameplay.
But you just listed companies that aren't even comparable; they're at entirely different market capitalizations. FromSoft and CDPR are babies compared to Xbox, Sony, Nintendo, Activision, EA, and Epic. FromSoft has a rough valuation (its hard, because they're owned by Kadokawa) of maybe the low nine figures. CDPR is larger, in the low billions. Epic is like $40 billion. Activision, clearly, around $85B. EA, around $35B. And Microsoft/Sony, obviously, a lot, lot more.
Team Cherry and concernedape are also extremely amazing and ethical developers. But they aren't peers to the companies we're talking about. Its easy to be ethical when you're small. Its laudable to maintain a sense of those ethics when you're large, even if the absolute measure isn't a perfect score.
Nintendo is far scummier than you let on; they're among the scummiest video game companies on the planet. It just doesn't come through in their fantastic and "pure" gaming experiences; but the fights their legal team chooses to engage in are ugly, despicable, and very unique among gaming companies.
Team Cherry and concernedape are also extremely amazing and ethical developers. But they aren't peers to the companies we're talking about. Its easy to be ethical when you're small. Its laudable to maintain a sense of those ethics when you're large, even if the absolute measure isn't a perfect score.
Nintendo is far scummier than you let on; they're among the scummiest video game companies on the planet. It just doesn't come through in their fantastic and "pure" gaming experiences; but the fights their legal team chooses to engage in are ugly, despicable, and very unique among gaming companies.
Then what you meant to say is that it's a good business, not a good [video game] company. Good video game companies make good video games, of which there are many others. Epic, Activision, and EA have high valuations because their games are filled with micro-transactions, not because their games are superior to others. This is good for investors but not consumers (who your original comment was championing).
> Team Cherry and concernedape are also extremely amazing and ethical developers.
Team Cherry produced a great game. I wouldn't be willing to call them a good company or a good team; their track record shows as plainly as you could possibly wish that they are terrible at developing games.
Team Cherry produced a great game. I wouldn't be willing to call them a good company or a good team; their track record shows as plainly as you could possibly wish that they are terrible at developing games.
I have a tough time coming down to hard on free to play Fortnite. You can spend more. They incentivize you to spend more. That's been a staple in fashion for a long time.
But at the same time I think there's something cool about being able to hop in without shelling out $60. And getting updates and new content for years.
But at the same time I think there's something cool about being able to hop in without shelling out $60. And getting updates and new content for years.
Their target demographic is kids whose brains haven't developed yet and are unable to resist buying shiny digital things with their parents' credit cards and Epic makes sure to add as little resistance as possible. It's no surprise they wanted to add their own payment system to Fornite on iOS: Apple's has too much friction and parental controls to prevent abuse like this. The commission Apple collected was just a drop in the big bucket they were after.
From the FTC blog post:
>The FTC alleges that with millions of consumers’ credit cards conveniently in hand, Epic failed to adequately explain its billing practices to customers and designed its interface in ways that led to unauthorized charges. You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but here are a few of the dark patterns the company allegedly used.
>According to the complaint, Epic set up its payment system so that it saved by default the credit card that was associated with the account. That meant that kids could buy V-Bucks – the virtual currency necessary to make in-game purchases – with the simple press of a button. No separate cardholder consent was required.
Scum. Glad Apple booted them from the App Store and the courts sided with Apple.
From the FTC blog post:
>The FTC alleges that with millions of consumers’ credit cards conveniently in hand, Epic failed to adequately explain its billing practices to customers and designed its interface in ways that led to unauthorized charges. You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but here are a few of the dark patterns the company allegedly used.
>According to the complaint, Epic set up its payment system so that it saved by default the credit card that was associated with the account. That meant that kids could buy V-Bucks – the virtual currency necessary to make in-game purchases – with the simple press of a button. No separate cardholder consent was required.
Scum. Glad Apple booted them from the App Store and the courts sided with Apple.
> Its extremely frustrating how we let the tech companies get to be this large, such that now we really have to consider blocking every acquisition, even though this one in particular I think wouldn't be all that bad and may actually be a positive for consumers.
As an avid world of warcraft player, the community as a whole has been hoping the merger goes through for exactly this reason. Activision has seemingly forced through a lot of bad changes over the years to try wring out as much money as they can.
As an avid world of warcraft player, the community as a whole has been hoping the merger goes through for exactly this reason. Activision has seemingly forced through a lot of bad changes over the years to try wring out as much money as they can.
I'm a part of the StarCraft 2 community and we were similarly hopeful about this deal as StarCraft has been neglected by the company for years. The community was already in full doom mode over Korean tournament funding getting pulled, this is not going to improve the atmosphere.
I'm not sure "I want my favorite game to get better" is a good reason to allow more mega-conglomeration.
Why not? In abstract the argument is:
"I want this product to be better"
The reason we don't want companies to gain market power (the feared result of mega-conglomeration) is because it allows companies to charge more for the same or a worse product.
If this person believes that Blizzard being acquired by microsoft will result in a better product, then they expect the net benefits to outweigh the negatives of Microsoft's increased market power over the video games market.
Acquisitions that produce a consumer-surplus should be most welcome!
"I want this product to be better"
The reason we don't want companies to gain market power (the feared result of mega-conglomeration) is because it allows companies to charge more for the same or a worse product.
If this person believes that Blizzard being acquired by microsoft will result in a better product, then they expect the net benefits to outweigh the negatives of Microsoft's increased market power over the video games market.
Acquisitions that produce a consumer-surplus should be most welcome!
I'm curious on how a MS merger would be good? At the start, they would almost certainly try to merge user accounts into MSN accounts. Likely force a migration down the line, after merging doesn't work.
The way I think others are thinking about it is that to Activision, making innovative new franchises or long term investments in general is a big risk since they are 100% a games company. Whereas if Microsoft owns them may face less pressure to cut costs/long term investments since it would make up a much smaller part of Microsoft's financials.
Whether that is how things usually turn out in practice with these sorts of acquisitions is a question I don't have a good answer to.
Whether that is how things usually turn out in practice with these sorts of acquisitions is a question I don't have a good answer to.
I just don't think I've seen evidence from MS that they foster that sort of thing, either? Have they shown that they can do a new franchise?
Or is the idea that MS would just dump a lot of money on them? Do they have a track record of that?
Or is the idea that MS would just dump a lot of money on them? Do they have a track record of that?
If they merge user accounts but you can support for older products or other game changes it's possible people would be ok with that
Certainly many would be ok with it. The ones it will hurt will be the heavy users that have multiple accounts, is my guess. Also is annoying to families. Game accounts are just game accounts, even if that has grown. Giving the kids an MSN account did not sit well with me.
I and many other people had their accounts completely borked by the required migration. My lifetime license, gone, either through malice or incompetence. For trillion dollar companies, I always have to assume malice.
The solution to Activision being horrible shouldn't be to let it get eaten by a marginally less horrible even more giant company.
It should be to break it into smaller pieces so that consumers have the flexibility to avoid the more toxic segments of the company and the market can decide whether their bad behavior matters or not.
It should be to break it into smaller pieces so that consumers have the flexibility to avoid the more toxic segments of the company and the market can decide whether their bad behavior matters or not.
Why doesn’t the market just avoid the whole thing, which is toxic?
Xbox is loss leading hard for Microsoft right now. Profits are down, console sales are down, and things on the horizon are looking not too great. If Xbox spun off, they’d go out of business within the decade because there’s no reason to own one besides taking advantage of Microsoft’s net-negative gaming subscription.
It seems like video game consoles aren't competing based on practicality (hardware) anymore and are mostly just rent seeking with ways to abuse the legal/IP system.
There used to be a much bigger moat to assemble a platform that could play cutting edge games. Now PC game engines/graphics drivers are getting so good the console SDKs aren't such a big boon and the hardware is basically just CotS.
There used to be a much bigger moat to assemble a platform that could play cutting edge games. Now PC game engines/graphics drivers are getting so good the console SDKs aren't such a big boon and the hardware is basically just CotS.
Yeah. Sony and Nintendo still try to shake things up with their bespoke controllers and hardware doohickeys, but Microsoft's approach is just to release plain old PCs that only run their code.
Nintendo would be successful even without hardware. Their IPs have firmly planted themselves in global awareness to an unimaginable level. They'd give Disney a run for their money.
Then on top of that they built an ecosystem of toys and software to monetize their adoring customers.
Nintendo recognized the deadend of the hardware race in the early 2000s, and continued developing their "mascots" while Sony and MS abandoned theirs. I don't think Microsoft and Sony have the DNA to pull of something like this. They are still software and hardware companies respectively.
Then on top of that they built an ecosystem of toys and software to monetize their adoring customers.
Nintendo recognized the deadend of the hardware race in the early 2000s, and continued developing their "mascots" while Sony and MS abandoned theirs. I don't think Microsoft and Sony have the DNA to pull of something like this. They are still software and hardware companies respectively.
[deleted]
Xbox is Microsoft's only consumer division that has substantial revenue. Even consumer office brings in half of what Xbox does.
Microsoft is making the right moves here slowly shifting away from hardware (no profit) into software in the gaming space, but it's going to take some more time to do so.
Potentially it makes more sense to drop xcloud (huge black hole for the next ~10 years), to adhere to CMA's claims of them dominating the cloud gaming space, so they can continue with Game Pass (the part that actually matters for Xbox).
Microsoft is making the right moves here slowly shifting away from hardware (no profit) into software in the gaming space, but it's going to take some more time to do so.
Potentially it makes more sense to drop xcloud (huge black hole for the next ~10 years), to adhere to CMA's claims of them dominating the cloud gaming space, so they can continue with Game Pass (the part that actually matters for Xbox).
>has been one of maybe only a couple "great" stewards of the gaming industry for consumers
I'm not sure I'd give them much credit on this, since MS/Xbox hasn't achieved much at all in the gaming industry over recent years. Maybe there's not much egregious evil there a-la Activision's leadership scandals, but the track record is not great.
As a gaming industry consumer who's been playing Microsoft consoles and games my entire life, MS has recently:
- Ruined the Halo franchise
- Stymied the current console gen with the Series S' weak memory capabilities
- Acquired multiple beloved studios and released little to nothing over 5+ years, with their highest profile release being Starfield, the game Bethesda was already developing when MS bought them and made it a platform exclusive
- Edit: Forgot trying to turn the Xbox One into an always-online TV set-top box
Spinning off Xbox might be a good idea, if it's MS' senior leadership that keeps hamstringing their success. Because if the Activision acquisition proceeded like their previous studio acquisitions, we would see one or two Activision games release in the next decade, along with maybe a mediocre COD TV show.
I'm not sure I'd give them much credit on this, since MS/Xbox hasn't achieved much at all in the gaming industry over recent years. Maybe there's not much egregious evil there a-la Activision's leadership scandals, but the track record is not great.
As a gaming industry consumer who's been playing Microsoft consoles and games my entire life, MS has recently:
- Ruined the Halo franchise
- Stymied the current console gen with the Series S' weak memory capabilities
- Acquired multiple beloved studios and released little to nothing over 5+ years, with their highest profile release being Starfield, the game Bethesda was already developing when MS bought them and made it a platform exclusive
- Edit: Forgot trying to turn the Xbox One into an always-online TV set-top box
Spinning off Xbox might be a good idea, if it's MS' senior leadership that keeps hamstringing their success. Because if the Activision acquisition proceeded like their previous studio acquisitions, we would see one or two Activision games release in the next decade, along with maybe a mediocre COD TV show.
> - Edit: Forgot trying to turn the Xbox One into an always-online TV set-top box
people call this a terrible idea, i thought it was a great fucking idea. At the time, and frankly still, streaming apps are mostly what we use tvs for these days, and the platforms to run them that are shipped INSIDE of the tvs we buy fucking suck, uniformly.
While the xbox was built as a gaming console initially all they really wanted to do was expand that notion. It could be an everything box for your '10 ft experience' It could play games, and be a dvr, and be a streaming interface, and and and. They could easily spin out another sku with lower specs to curtail some of the gaming power and make a more streaming focused box (like an apple tv but by microsoft) and sell that to the parents while selling the beefy gaming one to the kids.
I think the thing that sunk it was some Orwellian notion about the kinect. It's awesome tech, get a siri/alexa plus body tracking. The biggest downside being that MS's stance on privacy is 'peasants get no privacy'. At the time siri/alexa were still in their early stages and people were creeped out by them. Siri with eyes was extra repellent.
Well that and gamers throwing a fit because they didn't want their gaming console to be useful to their parents and other non gamers ...
people call this a terrible idea, i thought it was a great fucking idea. At the time, and frankly still, streaming apps are mostly what we use tvs for these days, and the platforms to run them that are shipped INSIDE of the tvs we buy fucking suck, uniformly.
While the xbox was built as a gaming console initially all they really wanted to do was expand that notion. It could be an everything box for your '10 ft experience' It could play games, and be a dvr, and be a streaming interface, and and and. They could easily spin out another sku with lower specs to curtail some of the gaming power and make a more streaming focused box (like an apple tv but by microsoft) and sell that to the parents while selling the beefy gaming one to the kids.
I think the thing that sunk it was some Orwellian notion about the kinect. It's awesome tech, get a siri/alexa plus body tracking. The biggest downside being that MS's stance on privacy is 'peasants get no privacy'. At the time siri/alexa were still in their early stages and people were creeped out by them. Siri with eyes was extra repellent.
Well that and gamers throwing a fit because they didn't want their gaming console to be useful to their parents and other non gamers ...
You're misrepresenting what people were actually upset about with the Xbox One's original plans leading up to launch. If they wanted to add that Kinect functionality, whatever, but they announced it in a state where the Kinect was REQUIRED and had to always be plugged in. And it wasn't just always-on motion-tracking sensors, but an always-on microphone. In addition to that, your Xbox had to do a call to home every 24 hours to make sure you were still allowed to play physical games you purchased. You couldn't buy or sell used games, or lend them to a friend.
The DVR stuff wasn't a big issue for anyone, but it was emblematic of the fact that Microsoft didn't give a shit about gaming. Sony was already pulling ahead with exclusives people wanted by the end of the previous generation, and all Microsoft had to show for the next generation was a home entertainment system that had too much DRM and focused on their motion control gimmick at the point where everyone knew it was a fad that came and went in 2006 with the Wii. And on top of all this it was an extra $100 on top of the PS4's price.
Saying gamers were mad because the system could be useful to their parents is incredibly disingenuous.
The DVR stuff wasn't a big issue for anyone, but it was emblematic of the fact that Microsoft didn't give a shit about gaming. Sony was already pulling ahead with exclusives people wanted by the end of the previous generation, and all Microsoft had to show for the next generation was a home entertainment system that had too much DRM and focused on their motion control gimmick at the point where everyone knew it was a fad that came and went in 2006 with the Wii. And on top of all this it was an extra $100 on top of the PS4's price.
Saying gamers were mad because the system could be useful to their parents is incredibly disingenuous.
Wasn't the biggest thing with the kinect everyone was upset about was that if you say, rented a movie, there would be an implicit agreement that x number of people can watch at that price. If x+n people were watching, you would get up charged. Then also question of, what if only x people are watching but 1 person walks in a room, then walks out, would they have counted that as x+1?
First I've heard of that. I did a quick search just now and it sounds like it was some patent that was filed but there was never anything officially stated about it.
Yeah it's certainly something that they hardware could enable (in a limited and easily gameable way). But I don't think they talked about that anywhere but maybe with studio execs.
Mighta been a case at the time where someone saw the patent and a bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that it was a for sure thing that was gonna happen.
>Well that and gamers throwing a fit because they didn't want their gaming console to be useful to their parents and other non gamers ...
I think it's worth revisiting the announcement. Gamers were upset because the launch presentation of the new console spent very little time talking about games. That presentation was followed by a Q&A with the notorious "we have a console for people without reliable internet, it's the xbox 360" quip. The "peasants get no privacy" attitude really felt like it was just part of a bigger "the peasants will buy what we say" attitude.
I'm with you on the utility of the basic concept. I actually really enjoyed using the Kinect to control Netflix. There was a good concept buried in the xbone vision that I would still like to use today - but Microsoft fumbled the execution tremendously badly and in particular, did so in a way that did not show "good stewardship to gaming."
On that note, the Kinect almost ended Rare as a studio...and the cool media features introduced with the Xbox One are now as dead as the Kinect.
I think it's worth revisiting the announcement. Gamers were upset because the launch presentation of the new console spent very little time talking about games. That presentation was followed by a Q&A with the notorious "we have a console for people without reliable internet, it's the xbox 360" quip. The "peasants get no privacy" attitude really felt like it was just part of a bigger "the peasants will buy what we say" attitude.
I'm with you on the utility of the basic concept. I actually really enjoyed using the Kinect to control Netflix. There was a good concept buried in the xbone vision that I would still like to use today - but Microsoft fumbled the execution tremendously badly and in particular, did so in a way that did not show "good stewardship to gaming."
On that note, the Kinect almost ended Rare as a studio...and the cool media features introduced with the Xbox One are now as dead as the Kinect.
I have a pile of kinects I built up by snagging them out of goodwills and other charity shops. It's still cool as fuck tech. I mostly use the original 360 version because there are open source sdks for them that run on pretty much every platform. I think there are a few half baked K2 sdks that are open source these days but I haven't looked. They are great for interactive art projects. Tons of use in the computer assisted art space.
Totally, the Kinect was the first device I ever “hacked” with and really was what got me into programming. It’s a lot of fun to mess with to this day, when I last pulled mine out I was tinkering with full body tracking for SteamVR. It's too bad the K2 never got the same robust software platform since the hardware had some interesting capabilities, I recall the project I was working with said it had some advantages in the scanning range but the software was too unreliable to recommend it.
Is there anything like it available on the market new in box today? I recall the RealSense cameras seemed comparable but those are gone now.
Golly. I still do miss being about to navigate Netflix titles by just swiping my hand in either direction. That really felt like the future made real and now it’s been discontinued for years.
Is there anything like it available on the market new in box today? I recall the RealSense cameras seemed comparable but those are gone now.
Golly. I still do miss being about to navigate Netflix titles by just swiping my hand in either direction. That really felt like the future made real and now it’s been discontinued for years.
Microsoft has sought to dominate the living room long before Xbox.... remember Windows Media Center? I don't know if it is still their strategy (seems like not by your post, I don't have an Xbox One S and my living room runs Kodi on Android TV) but it has been their intention for a while.
Windows Media Center is truly dead and all the TV-focused/Roku-competitive parts of the Xbox One were turned off years ago in OS changes. (Many were turned off only months after that sad launch. Some of them were great features and there is reason to lament their loss in the massive turnaround.) The Series S/X successor consoles have never had any of those parts of the OS and the above comment that this "Xbox One living room debacle" being "recent" feels outdated at best.
Microsoft seems to have given up on the living room entirely outside of gaming ambitions.
Microsoft seems to have given up on the living room entirely outside of gaming ambitions.
Its funny, prior to getting a SmartTV I used my Xbox One basically as Microsoft imagined. Game console, dvd player, and box to run my streaming apps.
Even after getting a smart tv I still use gaming consoles or an apple tv for everything. The smart tv apps are generally dog slow and terrible uis and menuing in comparison to the apps that have decent compute behind them.
I've transitioned to using a chromecast and my phone for most everything. I expect it uses a little less juice than running the console, so I come out ahead there.
Xbox's role in the gaming industry has, funny enough, very little to do with Xbox itself. It's their competitive presence that has kept Playstation from stagnating and making terrible decisions. You can see this extremely clearly when the 360 was outselling the PS3 and Playstation/Sony made plenty of management changes to shift directions.
I can agree there - MS has an important competitive role in the marketplace and it's not like Sony has always been a great steward to the community by comparison. I have mixed feelings about exclusives in general, but Sony has certainly played that game more than MS.
But the 360 was unveiled in 2005 and was replaced in the market a decade ago. My criticisms are really oriented to the last 5-10 years. On that note, I'm reminded of the Xbox One "your game console is for watching TV and will always be connected to the internet" release. And in that generation, it was the clamoring market and Sony's response (like the classic 'how to share secondhand games' video[0]) that pushed Microsoft to stop acting unreasonably.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48nCBnc9VBs
But the 360 was unveiled in 2005 and was replaced in the market a decade ago. My criticisms are really oriented to the last 5-10 years. On that note, I'm reminded of the Xbox One "your game console is for watching TV and will always be connected to the internet" release. And in that generation, it was the clamoring market and Sony's response (like the classic 'how to share secondhand games' video[0]) that pushed Microsoft to stop acting unreasonably.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48nCBnc9VBs
Yes that's very true! Much to their benefit, Playstation has been positively aggressive in recent years, I would attribute a lot of that to Mark Cerny (and the core platform tooling team) learning from PS3 mistakes and making the platform prioritize ease of development, and also from Xbox's mistakes on trying to pivot to general entertainment.
> Activision is an unusually cruel and extremely horrible company, whereas the Xbox Division
Even if this were true, there is no guarantee that the acquiring culture will actually be imposed on the acquired. In fact it's often the opposite, with the acquired "infecting" the parent company - particularly when the acquired comes with a large headcount.
Even if this were true, there is no guarantee that the acquiring culture will actually be imposed on the acquired. In fact it's often the opposite, with the acquired "infecting" the parent company - particularly when the acquired comes with a large headcount.
Is part of what makes companies like this horrible the fact they WANT to get bought?
The one company I have in depth knowledge of going through an acquisition tried to drive employees away where possible, and fire others, down to a skeleton crew of overworked disgruntled employees because it makes them look REALLY good in the short term for being acquired.
If you couldn't count on acquisitions by larger companies being approved easily, the only other way to game companies can generate profit is by maintaining current games (at least to being playable, without terrible reviews from bugs), and /or develop new games...
The one company I have in depth knowledge of going through an acquisition tried to drive employees away where possible, and fire others, down to a skeleton crew of overworked disgruntled employees because it makes them look REALLY good in the short term for being acquired.
If you couldn't count on acquisitions by larger companies being approved easily, the only other way to game companies can generate profit is by maintaining current games (at least to being playable, without terrible reviews from bugs), and /or develop new games...
I was literally fired while recovering from cancer surgery because the company I worked for was selling itself to Wimba (who in turn was selling itself to Blackboard). My company wanted to reduce headcount to look better for Wimba.
Screw those guys...
Screw those guys...
"Its extremely frustrating how we let the tech companies get to be this large,"
With how quickly tech changes and the risks involved, companies have to find multiple revenue streams if they want to survive. Pretty much every startup dream is to one day become a huge company.
With how quickly tech changes and the risks involved, companies have to find multiple revenue streams if they want to survive. Pretty much every startup dream is to one day become a huge company.
I feel like with Gamepass and all their exclusives being day 1 on Windows as well, there's probably more crossover nowadays than there has been in years, but overall you're right that spinning out Xbox entirely would make a lot of sense.
They can't spin out Gamepass because it is a money pit. There aren't enough subscribers to fund large budget game development. At the same time, Gamepass trains subscribers to not purchase new games, because they'll be on Gamepass eventually.
I hate the idea of Gamepass because I saw it happen to cable television.
In the 1980s, for instance, MTV really showed music videos. It got bought by old fogey Sumner Redstone who decided unilaterally that we couldn't see music videos anymore -- funny now that we have YouTube it's been discovered that people want to watch music videos when they can. (A bit of destruction like Musk buying Twitter?)
If you buy a game you are voting with your dollar, if you subscribe they're going to make an Assassin's Creed game this year, and next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. The game industry is going to make whatever games it wants to make, and Microsoft will pay them, and I guess people will play them because they don't have a choice. We saw that with cable, since they get paid whether or not you watch, they can skimp on quality and collect increasing payments year after year. The movie and TV industry has been driven mad by streaming because suddenly performance matters... Disney is completely capable of producing a product that upholds it's brand but why do it when you can get $7 a month from every cable subscriber for ESPN whether or not they watch sports?
In the 1980s, for instance, MTV really showed music videos. It got bought by old fogey Sumner Redstone who decided unilaterally that we couldn't see music videos anymore -- funny now that we have YouTube it's been discovered that people want to watch music videos when they can. (A bit of destruction like Musk buying Twitter?)
If you buy a game you are voting with your dollar, if you subscribe they're going to make an Assassin's Creed game this year, and next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. The game industry is going to make whatever games it wants to make, and Microsoft will pay them, and I guess people will play them because they don't have a choice. We saw that with cable, since they get paid whether or not you watch, they can skimp on quality and collect increasing payments year after year. The movie and TV industry has been driven mad by streaming because suddenly performance matters... Disney is completely capable of producing a product that upholds it's brand but why do it when you can get $7 a month from every cable subscriber for ESPN whether or not they watch sports?
I'm confused why you think they aren't tracking what games are played for how long, and won't optimize based on that. I would assume there's some royalty type situation with gamepass where the games that get played more get some percentage of a pool.
You can rail about cable all you want, but some of the best shows of the last few decades were on cable. Breaking bad, mad men, the shield. Greatly expanding the choices allowed for networks to take risks in attempts to gain a small but I yerested audience, rather than having to appeal to the entire general public, and what we got was amazing.
You can rail about cable all you want, but some of the best shows of the last few decades were on cable. Breaking bad, mad men, the shield. Greatly expanding the choices allowed for networks to take risks in attempts to gain a small but I yerested audience, rather than having to appeal to the entire general public, and what we got was amazing.
More time spent does not equal enjoyment. Some games treat their players like employees and make them work pretty hard for their imaginary prizes. I wouldn't want a games library optimized for maximum time expenditure.
No kidding. The whole idea of (even partially) evaluating a game's value/quality by how long it takes to finish it is a mind virus. It leads to bloated, grindy experiences where a shorter game might have been more appropriate or even more fun.
While I agree paying out based on time spent may incentivize games into poor behavior, I think there are ways to account for that (e.g. weeks of the month the game was played more than an hour or two total). Greatly reducing the up-front investment to try out a game allows for different types of games to find an audience.
If I have to pay $20 to try out some indie title, I might put it off a long time until it's on sale or never try it. If it's already included in a subscription I pay for, I might try it early or right after hearing some buzz about it. More people jumping in on that buzz can create a wave of enthusiasm that greatly increases the reach of the game that wouldn't happen if a similar number of sales trickled in over an extended period, which might increase players (and possibly sales on other platforms) more than otherwise.
It's been noted many times in the past, some of the big breaks for indie studios were when they got accepted into these programs or ones like it.
If I have to pay $20 to try out some indie title, I might put it off a long time until it's on sale or never try it. If it's already included in a subscription I pay for, I might try it early or right after hearing some buzz about it. More people jumping in on that buzz can create a wave of enthusiasm that greatly increases the reach of the game that wouldn't happen if a similar number of sales trickled in over an extended period, which might increase players (and possibly sales on other platforms) more than otherwise.
It's been noted many times in the past, some of the big breaks for indie studios were when they got accepted into these programs or ones like it.
I've only seen a few games so I can't say this is universal but when I play Japanese games on the Xbox all of the achievements say something like "5.4% of gamers accomplished this" which indicates that very few people finish this games, but a few western games I played didn't seem to show these percentages and I wonder if this is an attempt to work on people's psychology.
I didn't realize this was a thing that could be enabled/disabled per-game. I think all achievements on Steam come with the "x.x% got this" stat.
> I would assume there's some royalty type situation with gamepass where the games that get played more get some percentage of a pool.
My understanding is for non-exceptional games (like, not Fortnite-scale), they just provide a flat fee with a fixed-length contract. Your studio gets $X and it will be on GamePass for Y months. I'm sure gameplay stats are taken into account for future contract renewals or for other games with the same studio, but no, I don't think there is any kind of explicit revenue sharing going on. It can be a hard decision for studios, since they have to balance lost income from sales against the guaranteed income and added publicity from being on GamePass.
Source: Stuff I remember from podcasts, mostly Brandon Sheffield on Insert Credit. Sorry, I know that's not a great reference =/
My understanding is for non-exceptional games (like, not Fortnite-scale), they just provide a flat fee with a fixed-length contract. Your studio gets $X and it will be on GamePass for Y months. I'm sure gameplay stats are taken into account for future contract renewals or for other games with the same studio, but no, I don't think there is any kind of explicit revenue sharing going on. It can be a hard decision for studios, since they have to balance lost income from sales against the guaranteed income and added publicity from being on GamePass.
Source: Stuff I remember from podcasts, mostly Brandon Sheffield on Insert Credit. Sorry, I know that's not a great reference =/
Because that's not what gives them money. They are tracking what games bring in new subscribers.
Is the xbox division the main gaming division of MS?
Games aren't bad for MS, It brings in more than 3 billion a quarter.
How many times have you seen I do most of my stuff on Linux but I still boot in to windows for games. An independent xbox would be less likely to use Windows for their OS.
How many times have you seen I do most of my stuff on Linux but I still boot in to windows for games. An independent xbox would be less likely to use Windows for their OS.
Given how badly the Xbox for Windows system functions (lots of games don't even support the Xbox Series S/X controller reliably until you set them up to use Steam as their launcher), it already seems like the Xbox organization doesn't think much about Windows.
> spin-off Xbox into a separate company. I can't imagine the division is all that profitable
only like $5 billion in annual revenue, doubt they'll want to let that go for no reason.
only like $5 billion in annual revenue, doubt they'll want to let that go for no reason.
I guess it could reduce the risk of another platform creating network effects.
Note that Microsoft has an extremely high operating margin of 40%, which indicates insufficient competition. Even Apple has "just" 30%. With all that money laying around, they can just gobble up anything but the biggest fish.
A focus on margins irrespective of industry leads to incorrect analysis. For example, look at Comcast, a company that truly operates as a monopoly/duopoly in most of its markets. It has an operating margin of 7.6%.
On the other hand, Exxon Mobil has an operating margin of nearly 20% despite selling an undifferentiated commodity in a market with many well-capitalized competitors. (They are not the only one: ConocoPhillips also sports an operating margin in the range of 20%.)
The particulars of a market often drive margins more than does the competition.
On the other hand, Exxon Mobil has an operating margin of nearly 20% despite selling an undifferentiated commodity in a market with many well-capitalized competitors. (They are not the only one: ConocoPhillips also sports an operating margin in the range of 20%.)
The particulars of a market often drive margins more than does the competition.
Capital intensive businesses like Comcast with lots of plant and equipment tend to have lower operating margins because of all the D&A.
This is one reason why operating margin alone doesn't speak to the competitive nature of the market in which a company competes. Other reasons include current position in a cyclical business cycle, quality of management, corporate history (e.g. accumulated debt), etc.
Also note that the oil companies I mentioned have higher margins than Comcast, and they operate businesses that are also capital intensive with lots of plant and equipment. They operate in more competitive markets than Comcast, and yet they have higher operating margins. Different markets produce different results.
Also note that the oil companies I mentioned have higher margins than Comcast, and they operate businesses that are also capital intensive with lots of plant and equipment. They operate in more competitive markets than Comcast, and yet they have higher operating margins. Different markets produce different results.
That's why the person you're replying to didn't look at margins irrespective of industry. They compared Microsoft to Apple.
Apple sells hardware and software/services, Microsoft sells primarily software and software services (surface aside). Hardware is the business of buying materials, improving them, and selling them at a premium. Software is the business of developing software, then selling it to as many people as you can. Software naturally lends itself to high margins. Hardware less so.
I'm all for free market competition etc., although in truth I've never seen it being 'good for innovation' quite as people describe.
The first big player in a space e.g. Atlassian just acquires any competition and guts it. Sure, that's as free market as it gets (ignoring anti-trust?) but I don't see the benefit to the consumer.
Or, at the other end, as a Canadian, UK taxpayer (and many others) your money goes to keep afloat gov't subsidized startups that could never compete in the free market otherwise... is this beneficial as well?
I just write ANSI C so maybe it's all lost on me somewhere.
The first big player in a space e.g. Atlassian just acquires any competition and guts it. Sure, that's as free market as it gets (ignoring anti-trust?) but I don't see the benefit to the consumer.
Or, at the other end, as a Canadian, UK taxpayer (and many others) your money goes to keep afloat gov't subsidized startups that could never compete in the free market otherwise... is this beneficial as well?
I just write ANSI C so maybe it's all lost on me somewhere.
> Atlassian just acquires any competition and guts it
Did Atlassian “gut” Trello or Bitbucket? I was using both before Atlassian acquired them and don’t fully understand what you’re talking about.
Can you elaborate a bit more about your theory？
Did Atlassian “gut” Trello or Bitbucket? I was using both before Atlassian acquired them and don’t fully understand what you’re talking about.
Can you elaborate a bit more about your theory？
Which subsidized startups are you referring to?
Different industries have different margins. Apple and Microsoft are not really comparable businesses.
You have to take quite a narrow view of the business world to say Apple and Microsoft aren't comparable. They might have different products, but it's not like Apple is a greengrocer.
From a profit margin perspective they are wildly different. Amazon profits are mostly just AWS. Microsoft is, I think, driven by their enterprise software. Apple is, I think, more hardware and App Store.
We shouldn’t expect them to have similar margins.
We shouldn’t expect them to have similar margins.
Nobody said we should, but they have.
And so it's a meaningless correlation. Telsa has a 30% margin too. Do you want to lump them along with Apple and MSFT?
This source says 15%:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/tesla/operating-margin/
I have doubts that Tesla can convert that operating margin to profit margin, which puts them far behind MSFT and AAPL which are tried and true profit margin machines.
80% of Apple’s revenue is from selling products and 20% from services.
The gross margins on those segments are completely different - twice as large for services.
Microsoft reports three segments with roughly the same size and similar margins.
The gross margins on those segments are completely different - twice as large for services.
Microsoft reports three segments with roughly the same size and similar margins.
Apple is a hardware company.
Microsoft is almost entirely a software company.
Microsoft is almost entirely a software company.
xbox, surface, HID devices, hololens, ... microsoft is TRYING to be a hardware company, they just suck at it.
Most Microsoft hardware is excellent IME.
is it? the new natural keyboard is literal landfill, the surfaces are great until they break, i don't think even MS can open them up for repair without destroying the damn things. The surface studio was apparently a technical dud and way too expensive to boot.
The xbox 360 had such terrible heat dissipation problems that it got it's own moniker 'the red ring of death'.
In the old days their HID device devision was solid, and was doing some interesting things. Back in the 90s-00s their keyboards and mice were pretty much best in class (if you wanted a membrane keyboard), the natural keyboard was a big step forward in ergonomics. On the gaming side they had solid mid range flight sticks that the rest of the industry lacked (it was either crazy high end or literal trash). Hell they even tried some coolish experimental devices that were at least interesting .. Specifically I'm thinking of the Sidewinder Strategic Commander. A kind of one handed keyboard that was sitting on top of a two axis sliding mechanism.
In the 2010s they did some interesting devices (or branded some) like the kinect and the original surface tables (the ones that looked like cocktail style arcade machines)... and they started moving into compute devices like the 'second gen' surface branded tablets/convertables/laptops. Those seem less successful overall. I don't see too many enterprises giving people surfacebooks instead of lenovos...
The xbox 360 had such terrible heat dissipation problems that it got it's own moniker 'the red ring of death'.
In the old days their HID device devision was solid, and was doing some interesting things. Back in the 90s-00s their keyboards and mice were pretty much best in class (if you wanted a membrane keyboard), the natural keyboard was a big step forward in ergonomics. On the gaming side they had solid mid range flight sticks that the rest of the industry lacked (it was either crazy high end or literal trash). Hell they even tried some coolish experimental devices that were at least interesting .. Specifically I'm thinking of the Sidewinder Strategic Commander. A kind of one handed keyboard that was sitting on top of a two axis sliding mechanism.
In the 2010s they did some interesting devices (or branded some) like the kinect and the original surface tables (the ones that looked like cocktail style arcade machines)... and they started moving into compute devices like the 'second gen' surface branded tablets/convertables/laptops. Those seem less successful overall. I don't see too many enterprises giving people surfacebooks instead of lenovos...
I don't know which generation of natural keyboard you mean, but the one I have is wonderful, and my two generations of Surface Books have been absolutely beautiful devices - yes they've got soldered memory and can't really be repaired or upgraded, but that's par for the course for a tablet (and increasingly for laptops too - I think most MacBooks are like that?). I honestly don't know why they're not more popular with corporates other than Lenovo/Dell already being established there - they make great development machines and are wonderful in a "fixed desk with a docking station but also use on the move" scenario.
MS have definitely had some failures and weirdnesses (and a few straight up "should never have happened" issues like the RROD), but that's part of innovation.
MS have definitely had some failures and weirdnesses (and a few straight up "should never have happened" issues like the RROD), but that's part of innovation.
The 'sculpt' is specifically the keyboard I'm talking about (I guess they've changed the name...). It's absolute garbage.
Ah, I don't know about that, mine is the "Surface Ergonomic Keyboard" (the silvery one).
In what industry is a 40% operating margin considered normal? For comparison, Elsevier has an operating margin of 37%.
McDonalds has an operating margin over 40%. And for Altria is above 50%. And for Visa or CME Group above 60%.
How are any of those things relevant for the comparability of the businesses of Apple and Microsoft anyway?
How are any of those things relevant for the comparability of the businesses of Apple and Microsoft anyway?
The holding company that does no selling to customers and only manages land and franchises has a margin over 40%. Nobody is surprised there.
Nobody was trying to surprise anyone here. The point was precisely that the margin depends among other things on what the company does and the things that Apple and Microsoft do are not really comparable.
The entire argument behind capitalism is that high margins attract competition that drives those margins down towards zero. If that isn’t happening, it’s due to an environment that isn’t competitive (e.g. too high a barrier to entry.)
If the opposite were true, that low margins attract competition, then the margins would increase towards 100%. How do you tell if these companies are going towards 100% or 0%? Wouldn’t we need to see a change over time? How do you account for businesses which are acquired during that time which affect their margins?
In the economic model of perfect competition, price equals marginal cost, so margins will be zero, as you say. Though you don't explicitly argue it, it is worth making clear that capitalism doesn't mean that the perfect competition model will always hold for all markets. There are plenty of reasons why monopolistic competition could occur, even in a strawman version of capitalism. People could pay attention to branding, for instance. Firms that spend more on branding might be able to maintain higher margins. So even in the strawman capitalism, margins could be high for reasons other than a lack of competition.
In the real world the technology industry does tend to have higher margins than other industries. There might be perfectly normal explanations for that, such as network effects, but there are also government policies that have the effect of reducing competition. For instance, intellectual property laws reduce competition in order to attempt to encourage innovation. The strawman version of capitalism doesn't exist in the real world. Margins can remain high for some time.
That being said, there are competitors for Microsoft's bread and butter products. If you want an alternative to Windows, try Linux. If you want an alternative to Office, try Open Office. For many users, however, they get a better experience with the Microsoft products than these alternatives, even though they are free. Microsoft has to keep making their products better than the alternatives or people will use others (though there are costs of switching and network effects that mean that MS probably doesn't need to have the absolute best product on the market in order for customers to keep using them).
In the real world the technology industry does tend to have higher margins than other industries. There might be perfectly normal explanations for that, such as network effects, but there are also government policies that have the effect of reducing competition. For instance, intellectual property laws reduce competition in order to attempt to encourage innovation. The strawman version of capitalism doesn't exist in the real world. Margins can remain high for some time.
That being said, there are competitors for Microsoft's bread and butter products. If you want an alternative to Windows, try Linux. If you want an alternative to Office, try Open Office. For many users, however, they get a better experience with the Microsoft products than these alternatives, even though they are free. Microsoft has to keep making their products better than the alternatives or people will use others (though there are costs of switching and network effects that mean that MS probably doesn't need to have the absolute best product on the market in order for customers to keep using them).
Just because we can’t guarantee a perfectly competitive market doesn’t mean the government can’t try to ensure one. E.g. you mention Linux as a competitor to windows, yet the government itself is a huge buyer of windows and Microsoft products in general. A role of government should be setting up and ensuring as close to perfectly competitive markets as possible.
"A role of government should be setting up and ensuring as close to perfectly competitive markets as piasible.[sic]"
Your argument is not that different from people who say things like "we don't have perfect competition, that is a market failure, the government must fix it". As I said before, perfect competition is a model. It isn't some utopian ideal. The argument as I phrase it is basically the Nirvana fallacy, and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your views.
I would be more sympathetic to arguments like: "anti-competitive corporate behavior, like the formation of monopolies or cartels or other means that reduce output and raises prices, is not socially optimal. The government should prevent such behavior"
In other words, I think you adopt a position that tries to prove too much. This merger may be bad (or it may be good, I don't really know), but you don't have to rely on the argument that if competition isn't perfect then the government should step in in order to oppose it. That's not a good argument.
Your argument is not that different from people who say things like "we don't have perfect competition, that is a market failure, the government must fix it". As I said before, perfect competition is a model. It isn't some utopian ideal. The argument as I phrase it is basically the Nirvana fallacy, and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your views.
I would be more sympathetic to arguments like: "anti-competitive corporate behavior, like the formation of monopolies or cartels or other means that reduce output and raises prices, is not socially optimal. The government should prevent such behavior"
In other words, I think you adopt a position that tries to prove too much. This merger may be bad (or it may be good, I don't really know), but you don't have to rely on the argument that if competition isn't perfect then the government should step in in order to oppose it. That's not a good argument.
While I agree that governments shouldn't buy Microsoft products, it's not really a competition when nobody there aren't any companies trying to develop or sell linux as a client os for end-users.
Just to note - you're talking about economic profit (subtracting out opportunity cost) not accounting profit, which is what is being measured in these cases.
Microsoft has no real competitor for Office 365, it's basically free money for them.
Realistically the competition is "not buying it." Nothing in o365 is business critical until you buy into the Microsoft world and make them so. They have solid competitors in every vertical and "but <alternative> isn't as good" is overblown since outside of Office and managing Windows (which is a problem of your own making) they're not best-in-class for much. People vastly prefer Dropbox and Slack when it's on offer. Their offerings are attractive because they're good enough and cheap. If you don't buy into overbearing Windows IT administration world, pick any other email provider, and buy Office licenses ad-hoc for people who care and everyone else gets LibreOffice you can just pretend they don't exist.
Unless you go out of your way to buy cheap laptops the difference between macbooks and your favorite dell business longitude isn't as bad as you think.
Unless you go out of your way to buy cheap laptops the difference between macbooks and your favorite dell business longitude isn't as bad as you think.
True for larger companies, but a whole bunch of SMBs use Google Workspace, and some larger players have both subscriptions.
They're essentially the same company with minor philosophical differences.
Wait, what? You expect software companies to have low margins?
Apple's gross margin is about 40% because the marginal cost of hardware is somewhat expensive. Software companies typically gave gross margins of 65% or more, because the marginal cost of software is zero.
This is an odd take.
Apple's gross margin is about 40% because the marginal cost of hardware is somewhat expensive. Software companies typically gave gross margins of 65% or more, because the marginal cost of software is zero.
This is an odd take.
> hey wield huge power and can snuff out entire startup sectors with loss-leading products.
More importantly, they're becoming complacent and lazy, using their legal and financial clout to kill competition, not product improvements.
This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive to US behemoths which have been buying/killing their competition for decade(s) now.
More importantly, they're becoming complacent and lazy, using their legal and financial clout to kill competition, not product improvements.
This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive to US behemoths which have been buying/killing their competition for decade(s) now.
Microsoft is maybe the only big tech organization that feels like they're still actively trying to out-innovate their size. They invested in OpenAI (not acquired; invested) then weeks later made substantial improvements to Bing. They made a concept hardware device 10 years ago (the Courier), then finally made it real (it's not great, but that's beside the point). They're possibly the single largest funder of insanely critical open source software projects; Kubernetes, TypeScript, VSCode, etc. They acquired Github then practically speaking left them alone to continue being a really high quality product, while simultaneously investing in internal direct competitors (Azure DevOps). They released Loop a few weeks ago; now they're going after Notion.
You can argue that they're leveraging M365 and their enterprise contracts to out-innovate smaller competitors like Slack, Notion, etc. Yeah, ok; I don't love it. But I really can't help but feel: At least they're doing it. At least they're releasing new products that don't totally suck. I literally can't think of one thing Google has released in the past five years that left a fingerprint on the world. Facebook is a similar story. Apple is a very different company, but its not dissimilar: M1 was incredible, but if you put that aside (because, really, the past three years has been "M1 Catchup" for them) the iPhone is the same thing it was four years ago, the iPad is the same, the Watch is the same, the software is overwhelmingly the same, I guess they have a new Savings Account (when companies start running out of ideas to innovate, they turn to financial engineering).
Microsoft is a cool company, and I'll die on that hill. I'm not happy with everything they do. I think the entire Windows division leadership needs to be gutted and replaced, and they need to think long and hard about what Windows looks like for the next 10 years (and maybe they're already doing that!). But putting that aside, even considering Microsoft's very light anti-competitiveness, I'd take them over the rest of big tech nowadays. They're mostly just lame ducks.
You can argue that they're leveraging M365 and their enterprise contracts to out-innovate smaller competitors like Slack, Notion, etc. Yeah, ok; I don't love it. But I really can't help but feel: At least they're doing it. At least they're releasing new products that don't totally suck. I literally can't think of one thing Google has released in the past five years that left a fingerprint on the world. Facebook is a similar story. Apple is a very different company, but its not dissimilar: M1 was incredible, but if you put that aside (because, really, the past three years has been "M1 Catchup" for them) the iPhone is the same thing it was four years ago, the iPad is the same, the Watch is the same, the software is overwhelmingly the same, I guess they have a new Savings Account (when companies start running out of ideas to innovate, they turn to financial engineering).
Microsoft is a cool company, and I'll die on that hill. I'm not happy with everything they do. I think the entire Windows division leadership needs to be gutted and replaced, and they need to think long and hard about what Windows looks like for the next 10 years (and maybe they're already doing that!). But putting that aside, even considering Microsoft's very light anti-competitiveness, I'd take them over the rest of big tech nowadays. They're mostly just lame ducks.
However sceptical you may be about it, Meta deserves credit for at least trying to do something new with VR and Metaverse. We will see Apple follow suit in the next few months.
I really feel actually that Google is the outlier here in underperforming their innovation quota. It seems to me they hired a bunch of high level managers who somehow got envy of Ballmer-era Microsoft and tried to re-invent it at Google. I can't understand how or why this seems like a good strategy but it's all I can make of the fact that have withdrawn from every innovative product they were interested in.
I really feel actually that Google is the outlier here in underperforming their innovation quota. It seems to me they hired a bunch of high level managers who somehow got envy of Ballmer-era Microsoft and tried to re-invent it at Google. I can't understand how or why this seems like a good strategy but it's all I can make of the fact that have withdrawn from every innovative product they were interested in.
That's all great, but...
> Microsoft is a cool company, and I'll die on that hill.
"cool" companies stagnate. Remember, Microsoft was that "cool" company who left us with rottin IE6 until competition came.
So let me channel Ballmer, leader of said cool company: COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION. That makes our world better.
> Microsoft is a cool company, and I'll die on that hill.
"cool" companies stagnate. Remember, Microsoft was that "cool" company who left us with rottin IE6 until competition came.
So let me channel Ballmer, leader of said cool company: COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION, COMPETITION. That makes our world better.
Microsoft tried moving away from legacy Windows with UWP. The long term plan was probably for UWP to replace core Windows with that.
Windows will be around for at least a few more decades until everything is a web app. But leadership under Nadella knows the clock is ticking and that's why they've moved their focus to making Office 365 (Office/OneDrive/Teams) and Azure their bread and butter.
Windows will be around for at least a few more decades until everything is a web app. But leadership under Nadella knows the clock is ticking and that's why they've moved their focus to making Office 365 (Office/OneDrive/Teams) and Azure their bread and butter.
> I think the entire Windows division leadership needs to be gutted and replaced, and they need to think long and hard about what Windows looks like for the next 10 years (and maybe they're already doing that!).
I think the reason Windows is getting crappier is the same reason that Microsoft is doing everything else in your list - they're transitioning to an SaaS/services company and leveraging their existing strengths/monopolies to elbow their way into various SaaS markets (see: Microsoft Teams shipping "free" with O365). Changing windows to respect users again would require changing the whole corporate culture you are praising, not just the Windows division. In my opinion what's happening to Windows is entirely consistent with everything else Microsoft is doing, not some aberration.
I think the reason Windows is getting crappier is the same reason that Microsoft is doing everything else in your list - they're transitioning to an SaaS/services company and leveraging their existing strengths/monopolies to elbow their way into various SaaS markets (see: Microsoft Teams shipping "free" with O365). Changing windows to respect users again would require changing the whole corporate culture you are praising, not just the Windows division. In my opinion what's happening to Windows is entirely consistent with everything else Microsoft is doing, not some aberration.
I think "innovate" is a very strong word for what Microsoft is doing with Slack and Notion. The absolute most charitable I could be is that these applications are just functional enough to fit into the same niche, but more realistically they are minimum effort bundled me-toos to entice penny wise and pound foolish managers with control over the IT budget.
Comments about the quality of the offerings aside, what do these applications objectively bring to the table that merits calling them innovative?
Comments about the quality of the offerings aside, what do these applications objectively bring to the table that merits calling them innovative?
Kubernetes is from Google.
Its not Google's project anymore. They're still the largest contributor, but Red Hat, VMWare, and Microsoft are all massive contributors [1]
[1] https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/9/companies-table?orgId=1&var...
[1] https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/9/companies-table?orgId=1&var...
> This is why China is so scary - their companies have started being very competitive
When it comes to tech regulation the Chinese authorities have at least a 2-3 year advantage against the US/UK, notice how the likes of Alibaba and Tencent have been brought (relatively) down compared to what was expected of them 5 years ago.
When it comes to tech regulation the Chinese authorities have at least a 2-3 year advantage against the US/UK, notice how the likes of Alibaba and Tencent have been brought (relatively) down compared to what was expected of them 5 years ago.
Kidnapping CEOs who dare speak out against your regime, you see this as an advantage?
Was this proven in one way or another? You speak of it as it's 100% sure it happened, but I haven't seen anything but rumors about this, you wouldn't spread hearsay on HN right?
Given that the CCP frequently "disappears" its nationals that it has some problem with, I think giving the CCP the benefit of the doubt is unwise and harmful. Given it's demonstrated pattern over many years, I think we can safely assume malintent.
Nothing is 100% sure, anyway, and the CCP does these things in secret to provide it deniability.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/04/tycoon-xiao-ji...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/china-billi...
Nothing is 100% sure, anyway, and the CCP does these things in secret to provide it deniability.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/04/tycoon-xiao-ji...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/china-billi...
Never confuse morality and efficiency, even when tray ng to make a moral point.
The methods definitely aren’t great but the effects may be. Although some of the goals the government has are not really about the populous and more about limiting private sector power vis a vis the government and not the populous.
As an American I think I and most of my fellow citizens would be better off if CEOs started getting tossed in jail.
What CEOs do you want sent to jail? And what were their crimes?
One idea: PG&E has killed lots of California residents through neglect, not to mention all the damage caused by fires that were their responsibility. Someone ought to pay for that other than the tax payers, if only to make an example.
Why not start with the politicians that let PG&E do this?
Let’s get to the bottom of the barrel, why not abolish all modern technology which has a will independent of humanity and leads to all those bad outcomes?
see the book Technological Slavery by Dr. Skrbina
see the book Technological Slavery by Dr. Skrbina
Let's start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_H._Shaw
Did he do something criminal or was this a bad accident? Would you prefer if your government could just decide who to toss in jail (which is what the CCP does). I'd prefer I had the right to a trial. Also a judiciary that is separate to from the rest of government to protect the population from politically motivated prosecutions.
> Did he do something criminal or was this a bad accident?
Even is something is an accident, gross negligence is still a thing and may be criminal depending on the consequences of said negligence.
Even is something is an accident, gross negligence is still a thing and may be criminal depending on the consequences of said negligence.
And thats what courts are supposed to do.
In general I don't have much sympathy for the CEOs of multi-multi-billion-dollar companies, if at all. And considering the current dire political and economic climate, including in many Western countries, I think that that view of mine is shared by many.
People like paganel are why you should keep an eye on politics even if you hate everyone or are basically satisfied with the status quo. There’re always those who has no problem with political violence as long as the violent are on their side. Be watchful.
I’m going to quote Chateaubriand, talking about the French of his time: “the French instinctively go where the power is; they don’t love freedom at all; equality alone is their only idol. And equality and despotism have secret connections between them. Seen under that light, Napoleon’s rule drew its power from the very hearts of the French people” (badly translated by me on a small iPhone while reading Compagnon’s The Antimoderns)
As such, it isn’t me or people thinking like me that you should fear (i.e. people who quote Chateaubriand to a total techie stranger on the web), you should fear the “quintessential” French (or Westerner, in today’s age) that goes “where the power is” by instinct (on this La Boetie was right centuries ago). That is if you people really care about your freedom.
As such, it isn’t me or people thinking like me that you should fear (i.e. people who quote Chateaubriand to a total techie stranger on the web), you should fear the “quintessential” French (or Westerner, in today’s age) that goes “where the power is” by instinct (on this La Boetie was right centuries ago). That is if you people really care about your freedom.
A billionaire is still a human being with the rights and dignity that come with being a person. It's very concerning to see someone essentially say "if you have x amount of money then I don't really care if you are kidnapped or killed." I don't particularly care for that level of wealth either, but I want laws to pass to remedy the funneling of money upward. I don't want to see them killed.
So which CEOs would you blame for the dire economic climate?
Politicians have much more power than CEOs.
Lets all celebrate dictatorships not wanting other powerful entities in their country.
Countries (or their leadership) can be good and bad at the same time, for different reasons.
China - Awful way of treating people, illusion of democracy, but at least they reign in huge companies.
US - Democracy but companies wield huge power. Doesn't seem to care about people's health much.
Many European countries - Huge focus on caring about public healthcare, companies under control but innovation stifled a lot of times
Same goes for basically every country, and it's important to be able to see the good and bad at the same time, to have a bit perspective. No country is 100% good, nor is any country 100% bad.
China - Awful way of treating people, illusion of democracy, but at least they reign in huge companies.
US - Democracy but companies wield huge power. Doesn't seem to care about people's health much.
Many European countries - Huge focus on caring about public healthcare, companies under control but innovation stifled a lot of times
Same goes for basically every country, and it's important to be able to see the good and bad at the same time, to have a bit perspective. No country is 100% good, nor is any country 100% bad.
You make a good point, that is which institution has more legitimacy inside a de facto authoritarian state? The state itself and its authoritarian leaders? Or a private corporation that got so big as to "submerge" the state? (for the latter case think Samsung and South Korea, if South Korea had kept its 1970s-1980s state-policies).
Unironically
No, let's all celebrate market competition, the most critical part of a functioning economy. Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets and can't just curbstomp the competition with lawyers and DRM like US corporations can in their markets.
So they're forced to compete on price, quality and features (to some extent - it's not like they're not getting daddy Xis helping hand). Just like companies in other healthy capitalist markets which haven't completely broke due to consolidation.
So they're forced to compete on price, quality and features (to some extent - it's not like they're not getting daddy Xis helping hand). Just like companies in other healthy capitalist markets which haven't completely broke due to consolidation.
PRC "progress" was a form of control. CCP basically handed everyone "rings of power" to rule over them. All their wealth is meant to be kept inside because that's control of the nation. Imagine if they didn't have currency controls, every rich person there would dump the Yuan for other currencies and overseas real estate. Meanwhile, all the inflated properties in the PRC will drop significantly. Unrest or instability is not good for CCP.
Which is all besides the point - the point is: you need market competition for capitalism to work. As soon as competition is broken, your economy starts stagnating and other incumbents start eating away at it.
> Chinese companies aren't competitive due to CCP or authoritarian regime, but they're competitive because they're the underdogs on western markets
China has been accused multiple times of assisting their companies with absurd amounts of government subsidies (leading to at least Europe and the US enacting counter tariffs), as well as using government and private industrial espionage and hacking campaigns to clone Western products.
China has been accused multiple times of assisting their companies with absurd amounts of government subsidies (leading to at least Europe and the US enacting counter tariffs), as well as using government and private industrial espionage and hacking campaigns to clone Western products.
What major power doesn't do this?
Taking off my US citizen hat for a moment, this is a valid critique. Free trade, unencumbered by government subsidies, is mostly an illusion. The global system of government is anarchy, and the powerful nations hold the weaker nations to strict rules while they quietly seize any and all advantages.
Absolutely, and that's toxic to the market the same way as US corporate consolidation is.
At least in the US it wasn't even about monopolies, but about whether or not a merger would negatively affect competition. [1] But at some point it feels like the FTC simply stopped enforcing its own guidelines, at least when large enough players were involved. Because it's somewhat self evident that the overwhelmingly majority of big corp mergers over the past couple of decades have completely crippled competition.
That said, I think this indirectly feeds off your core point - this 'new direction' of the FTC is almost certainly because these companies have become far too 'influential' owing to their size and power. I think one could even generalize a simple test: "Would the immediate collapse of this company meaningfully imperil the US economy, security, or other significant interests?" If so, that company needs to be split up until the answer is no.
[1] - https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
That said, I think this indirectly feeds off your core point - this 'new direction' of the FTC is almost certainly because these companies have become far too 'influential' owing to their size and power. I think one could even generalize a simple test: "Would the immediate collapse of this company meaningfully imperil the US economy, security, or other significant interests?" If so, that company needs to be split up until the answer is no.
[1] - https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
Large tech companies are nothing like banks and have no mechanism to immediately collapse. In fact, the fact that their collapse would imperil the US economy is a 100% guarantee that they won't collapse because it means people are dependent on buying their products.
And if you did break them up, it wouldn't solve the problem at all. Whatever company is in charge of Windows is still going to be critical no matter the size. It depends on the importance of the software product in the tech industry, not the size of the company like it does in banking.
And if you did break them up, it wouldn't solve the problem at all. Whatever company is in charge of Windows is still going to be critical no matter the size. It depends on the importance of the software product in the tech industry, not the size of the company like it does in banking.
The difference is that if Windows corp isn’t part of the O365 corp then they’re both forced to work with competitors instead of forcing you into their walled garden.
How nice would it be if all the features that you get from the windows/O365/Onedrive synergy were available to any cloud competitor? So I could pair word/excel sync with my own self-hosted cloud. I could back up all my files using the native tools to any cloud provider. That’s the sort of benefit you could theoretically have by breaking up Microsoft.
How nice would it be if all the features that you get from the windows/O365/Onedrive synergy were available to any cloud competitor? So I could pair word/excel sync with my own self-hosted cloud. I could back up all my files using the native tools to any cloud provider. That’s the sort of benefit you could theoretically have by breaking up Microsoft.
> but in general the top US tech companies... are too big
> I think most people can accept that there's a risk to consumers, markets, and democracy if companies become too big.
I don't think that's true at all. If you want to make an argument that companies are too big, you need some exact logic to support it.
The only solid arguments I'm aware of are specifically regarding banks because of their systemic impact on the economy -- the become "too big to fail" and thereby become a moral hazard situation. Although given the efficiencies of large banks, the solution has become to regulate them more tightly to prevent moral hazards, not to break them up.
But the idea that tech companies are too big doesn't have the same kind of logic behind it, and your assertion that they "snuff out entire startup sectors" doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence. To the contrary, they invest in entire startup sectors and competing top tech companies buy competing startups to supercharge them. Competition is thriving as the big tech firms compete with each other.
In the modern era of Big Tech, consumers seem to be doing great, markets seem to be doing great, and Big Tech's size is probably not even in the top 50 threats to democracy. The effects of social media is surely in the top 5 threats to democracy, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the company that owns a social network.
> I think most people can accept that there's a risk to consumers, markets, and democracy if companies become too big.
I don't think that's true at all. If you want to make an argument that companies are too big, you need some exact logic to support it.
The only solid arguments I'm aware of are specifically regarding banks because of their systemic impact on the economy -- the become "too big to fail" and thereby become a moral hazard situation. Although given the efficiencies of large banks, the solution has become to regulate them more tightly to prevent moral hazards, not to break them up.
But the idea that tech companies are too big doesn't have the same kind of logic behind it, and your assertion that they "snuff out entire startup sectors" doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence. To the contrary, they invest in entire startup sectors and competing top tech companies buy competing startups to supercharge them. Competition is thriving as the big tech firms compete with each other.
In the modern era of Big Tech, consumers seem to be doing great, markets seem to be doing great, and Big Tech's size is probably not even in the top 50 threats to democracy. The effects of social media is surely in the top 5 threats to democracy, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the company that owns a social network.
Big Tech companies have a history of buying smaller tech companies and ending or decreasing the products/services that the smaller companies provided which makes life worse for consumers.
In game development specifically there's a line of successful studios that were devoured and their game franchises destroyed or made creatively poorer.
In game development specifically there's a line of successful studios that were devoured and their game franchises destroyed or made creatively poorer.
My question is always: why did they sell? I suppose a small company is usually private, so it can't be a target of a hostile takeover.
The owners likely saw it as a better deal financially. Sad but usually true.
I like the idea of "meat" and "milk" startups, like cow breeds; "meat" companies are created to grow fast and be sold (and usually butchered), and "milk" companies are kept more stable and independent, to fulfill their purpose, not (just) in hopes of a purely financial gain.
The owners likely saw it as a better deal financially. Sad but usually true.
I like the idea of "meat" and "milk" startups, like cow breeds; "meat" companies are created to grow fast and be sold (and usually butchered), and "milk" companies are kept more stable and independent, to fulfill their purpose, not (just) in hopes of a purely financial gain.
> My question is always: why did they sell? I suppose a small company is usually private, so it can't be a target of a hostile takeover.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-am...
Similar stories exist for every single of the big tech companies.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-am...
Similar stories exist for every single of the big tech companies.
How can a game franchise be destroyed by price cuts from a competitor? (Honest question.)
> I don't think that's true at all. If you want to make an argument that companies are too big, you need some exact logic to support it.
It's well known that oligopolies are bad for efficient pricing, just like with (though not as extreme as) monopolies.
That's why EU competition law rightly focuses on "significant market power", rather than US competition law which cares little unless there is a literal monopoly. (Currently, the UK retains EU competition law).
It's well known that oligopolies are bad for efficient pricing, just like with (though not as extreme as) monopolies.
That's why EU competition law rightly focuses on "significant market power", rather than US competition law which cares little unless there is a literal monopoly. (Currently, the UK retains EU competition law).
Reducing the number of companies reduces the competition that drives up wages and drives down prices and drives up service and product quality. Consider this: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/08/corporate-profits-ve....
When resources of a private company seriously outweigh those of a government, it may become a problem; see "banana republics" [1]. That is, regulations cannot work against a sufficiently overwhelming force.
"Snuffing entire sectors" is unlikely, even though buying and shutting down a potentially viable competitor is not uncommon in the business world. Google in particular bought and eventually closed a number of startups, but, to my mind, it was mostly because they did not happen to be fast enough growing, not to kill competition. There is some research [2] showing that companies do buy other companies to kill a competitor, but this is very far from being the majority of cases.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras
[2]: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/do-companies-buy-comp...
"Snuffing entire sectors" is unlikely, even though buying and shutting down a potentially viable competitor is not uncommon in the business world. Google in particular bought and eventually closed a number of startups, but, to my mind, it was mostly because they did not happen to be fast enough growing, not to kill competition. There is some research [2] showing that companies do buy other companies to kill a competitor, but this is very far from being the majority of cases.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras
[2]: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/do-companies-buy-comp...
> Competition is thriving as the big tech firms compete with each other.
Thriving competition wouldn't result in super profits year on year.
Thriving competition wouldn't result in super profits year on year.
Organic growth towards computing and digital does that. Time spent online is increasing, services are getting better, people are moving to the cloud from on-prem etc. etc.
It's not a zero sum game right now. The moment FAANGs are in a zero sum game trying to cannibalize each others' market shares I predict HN won't even have an argument around if tech firms are too big. That means tech has plateaued and has become a mature business like Coca cola or Kroger.
It's not a zero sum game right now. The moment FAANGs are in a zero sum game trying to cannibalize each others' market shares I predict HN won't even have an argument around if tech firms are too big. That means tech has plateaued and has become a mature business like Coca cola or Kroger.
Why is profit a metric that you want to minimize? Do you have any other metric that shows lack of competition? Because the above poster outlined some pretty strong positive ones
> consumers seem to be doing great
I want some of that stuff you are smoking.
Vendor lock-in. Planned obsolescence. Common, established features being removed in favor of proprietary protocols or connectors. Data privacy violations.
All of that because we like free/cheap stuff. Saying Big Tech is good to consumers is like saying Big Pharma is good because their opiods are chemically pure.
I want some of that stuff you are smoking.
Vendor lock-in. Planned obsolescence. Common, established features being removed in favor of proprietary protocols or connectors. Data privacy violations.
All of that because we like free/cheap stuff. Saying Big Tech is good to consumers is like saying Big Pharma is good because their opiods are chemically pure.
My big concern with large companies is cross-selling. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Google rightfully won the Internet, Apple rightfully won smartphones, Microsoft rightfully (?) won operating systems, etc.
All of them tried, competition was hot, the market picked a winner.
But what's next is a market distortion. Google uses their front page to push Chrome over Firefox, Apple doesn't care to make any of their other devices (e.g. Watch, HomePod) interoperate with other platforms, Microsoft packs Windows with ads for Office 365, OneDrive, and so on. All of Big Tech is perpetually obsessed with owning platforms as opposed to products, because once you control a platform, it gives you the leverage/"moat" to continue profiting without the corresponding investment into competing fairly. Thriving competition would be to have to compete independently in each market, rather than winning one and then extending that win to other markets by tilting the playing field.
Activision Blizzard falls nicely into this category as it's explicitly designed to gain an edge over Sony in gaming. Cloud gaming or not, it's clear to everyone that the general idea is improve the standing of Xbox products and Windows PCs by using the leverage of CoD as an existing market winner. As opposed to making the platform compete on its own terms. That's a market distortion.
The fact that large companies put large amounts of resources into startups and developing new markets doesn't mean that they compete fairly, or that it's a better outcome for society/consumers than an alternative reality where each product by itself would compete on its own merits, and companies could win markets independently rather than having to sell to existing market leaders for extra leverage.
All of them tried, competition was hot, the market picked a winner.
But what's next is a market distortion. Google uses their front page to push Chrome over Firefox, Apple doesn't care to make any of their other devices (e.g. Watch, HomePod) interoperate with other platforms, Microsoft packs Windows with ads for Office 365, OneDrive, and so on. All of Big Tech is perpetually obsessed with owning platforms as opposed to products, because once you control a platform, it gives you the leverage/"moat" to continue profiting without the corresponding investment into competing fairly. Thriving competition would be to have to compete independently in each market, rather than winning one and then extending that win to other markets by tilting the playing field.
Activision Blizzard falls nicely into this category as it's explicitly designed to gain an edge over Sony in gaming. Cloud gaming or not, it's clear to everyone that the general idea is improve the standing of Xbox products and Windows PCs by using the leverage of CoD as an existing market winner. As opposed to making the platform compete on its own terms. That's a market distortion.
The fact that large companies put large amounts of resources into startups and developing new markets doesn't mean that they compete fairly, or that it's a better outcome for society/consumers than an alternative reality where each product by itself would compete on its own merits, and companies could win markets independently rather than having to sell to existing market leaders for extra leverage.
> Edit. Seeing a lot of comments saying UK couldn't function without Microsoft which kind of supports my point.
Yup.
The NHS (UK National Health Service) is Microsoft's biggest single account for Office/Office365 and probably other stuff too.
So I guess add on other parts of UK gov and yeah, "couldn't function without Microsoft" is not far from the truth.
I mean, some might argue that the UK government hasn't functioned much since 2016/Brexit anyway, but that's another story. :)
Yup.
The NHS (UK National Health Service) is Microsoft's biggest single account for Office/Office365 and probably other stuff too.
So I guess add on other parts of UK gov and yeah, "couldn't function without Microsoft" is not far from the truth.
I mean, some might argue that the UK government hasn't functioned much since 2016/Brexit anyway, but that's another story. :)
Reminds me of the NHS Linux effort, that the CTO faked interest in, then used as a bartering stick to lower the M365 subscription price, then ghosted the NHS Linux devs
Yeah, I cannot see this merger being a net benefit for consumers. It reads completely like Microsoft just flexing its financial muscles gained entirely from things unrelated to gaming, and using that money to take over the industry in the long-term.
Sure, they did sign on their games with services like Geforce Now for 10 years and bring Call of Duty to Nintendo consoles. However, these all seem like short-term theatre to make everything look nice.
First of all, the reason why Microsoft games were not on Geforce Now was because Microsoft PULLED them from it [1]. And considering that Activision-Blizzard is (allegedly) worth $69 billion, I don't believe that they couldn't bring their games onto Nintendo platforms if they saw a market there. Seems like Microsoft is just making up imaginary markets to be able to say "look at all these people who will get Call of Duty because of US".
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228792/nvidia-geforce-n...
Sure, they did sign on their games with services like Geforce Now for 10 years and bring Call of Duty to Nintendo consoles. However, these all seem like short-term theatre to make everything look nice.
First of all, the reason why Microsoft games were not on Geforce Now was because Microsoft PULLED them from it [1]. And considering that Activision-Blizzard is (allegedly) worth $69 billion, I don't believe that they couldn't bring their games onto Nintendo platforms if they saw a market there. Seems like Microsoft is just making up imaginary markets to be able to say "look at all these people who will get Call of Duty because of US".
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228792/nvidia-geforce-n...
>"Seeing a lot of comments saying UK couldn't function without Microsoft"
Too Big to Fail should be recast as Too Big to Exist
Too Big to Fail should be recast as Too Big to Exist
If UK couldn't function without Microsoft, that's reason for the UK to create its own ICT industries so that its ICT sector isn't controlled by foreigners.
The logic doesn't make sense, and Microsoft also doesn't have a market power advantage here.
The Xbox Series X/S has been a bit of a boondoggle and Sony is vastly outselling Microsoft this generation. Not to mention the existence of Nintendo, Valve and other PC gaming stores. The argument that this would weaken competition for gaming consoles is laughable.
Sony and Nintendo have exclusive games to gain an advantage. Now an American company wants to do the same thing, and they are blocked.
American companies are being put at a competitive disadvantage due to ridiculous anti-trust interpretations. Basically the CMA and FTC are trying to prevent any American tech company from acquiring another tech company for political points at home. How did we get to this point?
It is extremely dangerous to throw logic out the window, as this results in bureaucrats picking winners and losers.
The Xbox Series X/S has been a bit of a boondoggle and Sony is vastly outselling Microsoft this generation. Not to mention the existence of Nintendo, Valve and other PC gaming stores. The argument that this would weaken competition for gaming consoles is laughable.
Sony and Nintendo have exclusive games to gain an advantage. Now an American company wants to do the same thing, and they are blocked.
American companies are being put at a competitive disadvantage due to ridiculous anti-trust interpretations. Basically the CMA and FTC are trying to prevent any American tech company from acquiring another tech company for political points at home. How did we get to this point?
It is extremely dangerous to throw logic out the window, as this results in bureaucrats picking winners and losers.
I don't think size is really relevant to the issue at all, it's simply the general anti-competitive practises that size has enabled these companies to pursue as aggressively as needed to crush all competition. What Microsoft is doing with bundling for example is far more destructive to competition than acquisitions.
I think what we need is more nuanced regulation to give smaller competitors room to compete with big tech products, if this were the case then who cares about their size or acquisitions? So long as smaller competitors can always rise and challenge the big players then size is fine since it would just correlate to quality and value, rather than an ability and willingness to crush competition.
The question to be asking is if a practise is unduly restricting competition. Having a market share of 95% is fine in my eyes so long as there is competition.
I think what we need is more nuanced regulation to give smaller competitors room to compete with big tech products, if this were the case then who cares about their size or acquisitions? So long as smaller competitors can always rise and challenge the big players then size is fine since it would just correlate to quality and value, rather than an ability and willingness to crush competition.
The question to be asking is if a practise is unduly restricting competition. Having a market share of 95% is fine in my eyes so long as there is competition.
I don’t think extra large tech companies are uniquely capable of any meaningful innovation. Ie. there’s no benefit to everyone by having them exist at that size.
In fact, I think their size makes them uniquely incapable of innovation. All they can do is push everyone down to stay on top.
In fact, I think their size makes them uniquely incapable of innovation. All they can do is push everyone down to stay on top.
I imagine hardware innovation these days requires huge amounts of money.
But you mostly need the money, not the headcount
Where is the money going to come from? The large tech companies are the ones with the best cash flows.
They give the money to smaller teams and swallow them upon success. Isn't that how it's been working for a while?
I am confused what we are conversing about. Waterluvian wrote the big tech companies are not capable of innovation, so my response was the funding still needs to come from them.
Whether or not it is a large group of employees or a small group of employees doing the innovating is a separate matter, but the need for huge cash flows is there (if my assertion is correct).
Whether or not it is a large group of employees or a small group of employees doing the innovating is a separate matter, but the need for huge cash flows is there (if my assertion is correct).
Then we agree. I must have missed something as I was finishing a bottle of 7.5% alcohol beer.
I recently learned about Chimay.
https://chimay.com/
https://chimay.com/
In general I agree with you; but in this particular case, this is a "win" for Sony who can continue with their vast array of exclusives unhindered, and a "loss" for gaming customers due to that.
> Edit. Seeing a lot of comments saying UK couldn't function without Microsoft which kind of supports my point.
The replies advocating for Microsoft to strong-arm a country into submission are chilling.
The replies advocating for Microsoft to strong-arm a country into submission are chilling.
My personal opinion it it really stops Microsoft being able to fully compete with Sony. Sony did a good job of buying up game studios to make PlayStation exclusive games. Microsoft tries to get into the game and it appears at first glance they're prevented.
I believe all this circus needs is just one big corp poking one big enough government to trigger this super reaction towards entropy.
Why? Cz there's $$$ to be had in the fallout for said govt and other competing big corps. And then the next govt follows suit and voila - a super reaction chain !
Why? Cz there's $$$ to be had in the fallout for said govt and other competing big corps. And then the next govt follows suit and voila - a super reaction chain !
Remember that time meta set up a free vpn app with no meta branding so they could monitor traffic and upcoming rival apps in real time to copy their features and neuter them?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo
Onavo vpn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo
Onavo vpn
This. This is exactly why I am ideologically opposed to working for a FAANG. You can do more than just avoiding purchasing their products - giving them your labor and resources allows these companies to gain even more power and influence than they already have.
This is especially pertinent to Microsoft which wants video games for their own hardware while Sony might have exclusives Destiny 2 is still on all platforms. Not to say that Sony is a perfect example in every situation and they do have exclusives.
Sony have been absolutely pathetic in regards to exclusivity agreements. Play either of the last Call of Duty games on a Playstation, you get and entire gamemode, permanent xp boosts, content unavailable for other platforms, or content available early. Insane they could even begin to suggest that they aren't guilty of the same for years.
In other words, a shallow big == bad without taking specfic context into consideration?
Imo I want competition and choice as a consumer. This basically sets things up so that consoles become a non competitive market because Xbox lacks exclusives that Sony has.
Imo I want competition and choice as a consumer. This basically sets things up so that consoles become a non competitive market because Xbox lacks exclusives that Sony has.
So what would be better then? Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei, Bytedance?
At least FB doesn't promote stupid challenges that send people to the hospital with cracked skulls like TikTok.
At least FB doesn't promote stupid challenges that send people to the hospital with cracked skulls like TikTok.
Have you seen the press release from CMA? They only mention cloud gaming and game pass price increase as the reasons to oppose Microsoft’s acquisition of AB, right?
Perhaps it is time to split up some of these tech companies? Lots of their ecosystems are potentially separable into different companies.
A lot of people want to see it purely on hope that under MS Actiblizzard will be less shit of a company. Which is... optimistic.
It's very optimistic. Even under new leadership the creative talent that Blizzard has lost over the last 10 years is not coming back. Microsoft themselves aren't particularly good at picking talent either - see the Halo Infinite/343 Studios debacle. Maybe there would be less of a push for player-hostile monetization, but I wouldn't count on it. The people who made and executed those decisions at Activision/Blizzard aren't magically going away either.
Plus, as we saw recently with Twitter, they are massively over staffed and depriving other companies of workers.
This will make it easier for large Chinese companies to rule over you that can "snuff out entire startup sectors with loss-leading products".
Totally agree. These huge companies are terrible for the overall economy, destroy innovation and contribute to inequality.
Sadly we are probably too late now. Need to dissect them into multiple entities (and maybe create more jobs) earlier.
Maybe "artificially large"?
I know a lot of people here are anti-big tech and I am too, to a certain extent, but I want to play devil's advocate here and provide my case for the deal:
Activision-Blizzard was in total corporate chaos before the deal was announced, the CEO (Bobby Kotick) was accused of permitting workplace sexual harassment and employees at the company were on the verge of mutiny. They were also seen as a stagnant publisher that only cared about its billion dollar franchises (Call of Duty and Candy Crush) while letting its other IPs like StarCraft and World of Warcraft rot and turning the beloved Diablo into a cash-grab pay-to-win mobile game. The Microsoft acquisition would have likely breathed some new life into the company and allowed corporate to clean up shop. This will probably lead to Activision-Blizzard continuing on its previous, doomed trajectory that it was on back in 2021.
Activision-Blizzard was in total corporate chaos before the deal was announced, the CEO (Bobby Kotick) was accused of permitting workplace sexual harassment and employees at the company were on the verge of mutiny. They were also seen as a stagnant publisher that only cared about its billion dollar franchises (Call of Duty and Candy Crush) while letting its other IPs like StarCraft and World of Warcraft rot and turning the beloved Diablo into a cash-grab pay-to-win mobile game. The Microsoft acquisition would have likely breathed some new life into the company and allowed corporate to clean up shop. This will probably lead to Activision-Blizzard continuing on its previous, doomed trajectory that it was on back in 2021.
I agree with most of this, but this isn't an argument for Activision-Blizzard merging with Microsoft, this is an argument that Activision-Blizzard shareholders need to throw out Bobby Kotick and his folks, and replace them with competent leadership (or really, anyone with a pulse who won't union-bust and won't sexually harass people, would be more qualified at this point).
It's ridiculous that a company with this many talented people, and this much treasured IP, is languishing in this state and tied up with such easy-to-avoid internal-only mistakes.
> The Microsoft acquisition would have likely breathed some new life into the company and allowed corporate to clean up shop
Maybe. But it seems more likely that Microsoft would have cleaned up leadership a tiny bit and then left Activision-Blizzard to slowly quietly rot away, in much the same way that Microsoft has treated Halo.
It's ridiculous that a company with this many talented people, and this much treasured IP, is languishing in this state and tied up with such easy-to-avoid internal-only mistakes.
> The Microsoft acquisition would have likely breathed some new life into the company and allowed corporate to clean up shop
Maybe. But it seems more likely that Microsoft would have cleaned up leadership a tiny bit and then left Activision-Blizzard to slowly quietly rot away, in much the same way that Microsoft has treated Halo.
Shareholders can get rid of Bobby Kotick and do all kinds of other leadership changes and it's not going to fix some of the problems that some of us were hopeful for.
Microsoft has shown some resolve when it comes to supporting games in spaces that aren't absolute gold mines, specifically in the Real Time Strategy (RTS) genre. They are publishers of Age of Empires, which all things considered is a drop in the bucket when revenue wise, yet it still is allowed to exist. Blizzard (via Activision) mostly exploits or kills all of it's "less-than" products, which increasingly is almost everything when compared to the behemoths like Call of Duty and Candy Crush.
It was probably a bit of wishful thinking, but some of us were actually excited that Microsoft would get access to some of the games that don't get supported very well while the customer base is literally holding their wallets out asking to pay to support the game. For example, Heroes of the Storm does have a dedicated following and we're ready to pay $10/mo or something similar to help support the game, but it's literally spent the last three years patching after every time it runs because it's broken. It still plays fine, but it eats gigabytes per month of bandwidth all because nobody cares enough to modify an XML file or something.
The same is true of Diablo II: Resurrected. It's a great game, but we can't pay for extra stash tabs which in the ARPG genre is kind of the go-to monetization strategy these days. Everyone would be fine paying $5 for a few stash tabs and it would be a good way to support ongoing development and maybe pave the way to getting the long awaited "Act 6" content everyone would love or even just allow the team to spend a bit more time adding more end-game meta content.
Microsoft has shown some resolve when it comes to supporting games in spaces that aren't absolute gold mines, specifically in the Real Time Strategy (RTS) genre. They are publishers of Age of Empires, which all things considered is a drop in the bucket when revenue wise, yet it still is allowed to exist. Blizzard (via Activision) mostly exploits or kills all of it's "less-than" products, which increasingly is almost everything when compared to the behemoths like Call of Duty and Candy Crush.
It was probably a bit of wishful thinking, but some of us were actually excited that Microsoft would get access to some of the games that don't get supported very well while the customer base is literally holding their wallets out asking to pay to support the game. For example, Heroes of the Storm does have a dedicated following and we're ready to pay $10/mo or something similar to help support the game, but it's literally spent the last three years patching after every time it runs because it's broken. It still plays fine, but it eats gigabytes per month of bandwidth all because nobody cares enough to modify an XML file or something.
The same is true of Diablo II: Resurrected. It's a great game, but we can't pay for extra stash tabs which in the ARPG genre is kind of the go-to monetization strategy these days. Everyone would be fine paying $5 for a few stash tabs and it would be a good way to support ongoing development and maybe pave the way to getting the long awaited "Act 6" content everyone would love or even just allow the team to spend a bit more time adding more end-game meta content.
See I go back and forth about this. I feel the same optimism in some ways about Microsoft getting their hand on the wheel...but they've also let a lot of great IP's languish that they already hold. Rare is a shell of its former self and is basically only around because of Sea of Thieves which really took a while to get the ball rolling, Lionhead hasn't released a game in over a decade, Halo is on life support, Gears is doing ok, Forza is doing good-ish I guess. Lots of examples to choose from, sadly.
> Forza is doing good-ish I guess.
That's a good counter-example. Forza Horizon 5 was released to much acclaim in terms of the actual game, but the release was plagued with terrible microtransaction problems that overshadowed it and caused the player base to revolt.
That's a good counter-example. Forza Horizon 5 was released to much acclaim in terms of the actual game, but the release was plagued with terrible microtransaction problems that overshadowed it and caused the player base to revolt.
Yeah definitely. Despite the rocky start with 5 Forza is arguably their strongest exclusive IP right now.
Agreed. But tossing leadership & getting new supposedly 'better' leadership is high risk, whereas an acquisition is low-risk and more reliable at getting short term gains.
There's a substantial portion of the tech startup sphere whose entire goals are: get big enough to get acquired and get a big bag from the sale. It kind of runs counter to current sentiment around here.
There's a substantial portion of the tech startup sphere whose entire goals are: get big enough to get acquired and get a big bag from the sale. It kind of runs counter to current sentiment around here.
> It's ridiculous that a company with this many talented people, and this much treasured IP, is languishing in this state and tied up with such easy-to-avoid internal-only mistakes.
It's why they are languishing. It's the "resource curse". On the contrary, It's one of the reasons why Microsoft is a killer machine. They are disciplined and focused. That kind of discipline stifles away creativity (like Skype and yammer).
It's why they are languishing. It's the "resource curse". On the contrary, It's one of the reasons why Microsoft is a killer machine. They are disciplined and focused. That kind of discipline stifles away creativity (like Skype and yammer).
One is a solution that fixes the issue now, the other is us hoping for shareholders to eventually do the morally right thing (which is a silly thing to expect).
It is crazy how Blizzard was a few hundred employees when they released Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo over a couple years. Now with 50X as many employees and 23 years of effort they have done nothing but coast off their original hits.
I don't know why this happens but it seems to occur again and again in gaming with indie studios that get acquired.
I don't know why this happens but it seems to occur again and again in gaming with indie studios that get acquired.
Modern games are just way more complicated and all the assets have to be a lot higher quality. The assets especially just take a lot more work to do.
A single character model can have more polygons then a whole game back in the day. The textures are also way more detailed, animations are more fluid/realistic, etc.
This is why a lot of effort is being put into helping developers to make content faster with things like automatically generating large parts of levels/worlds (basically a developer puts in the important parts manually and some system fills in the rest) and automatically generating and animating humanoid models (MetaHuman), etc.
For example here is nice video about using MetaHuman with basically just a phone for face capture as input https://youtu.be/pnaKyc3mQVk?t=72
UE5 procedural generation stuff https://youtu.be/akIqVM0gh4w?t=435
A single character model can have more polygons then a whole game back in the day. The textures are also way more detailed, animations are more fluid/realistic, etc.
This is why a lot of effort is being put into helping developers to make content faster with things like automatically generating large parts of levels/worlds (basically a developer puts in the important parts manually and some system fills in the rest) and automatically generating and animating humanoid models (MetaHuman), etc.
For example here is nice video about using MetaHuman with basically just a phone for face capture as input https://youtu.be/pnaKyc3mQVk?t=72
UE5 procedural generation stuff https://youtu.be/akIqVM0gh4w?t=435
>Modern games are just way more complicated and all the assets have to be a lot higher quality.
This is nonsense. Very few gamers actually care about how many polygons make up each tree and that some texture in the background is 10mb compressed. Meanwhile the actual product of video games from AAA companies has stagnated immensely. You can make your game ugly as sin, and if it's actually fun, people will love it. Every indie darling is an explicit disproving of this claim. We have Minecraft, factorio, cruelty squad which is entirely built around being horrible to look at but fun to play, an entire genre of "old" looking games that don't actually look old. There's even an entire world of games that look good with assets that you can buy on an open market for a few dollars each.
This is nonsense. Very few gamers actually care about how many polygons make up each tree and that some texture in the background is 10mb compressed. Meanwhile the actual product of video games from AAA companies has stagnated immensely. You can make your game ugly as sin, and if it's actually fun, people will love it. Every indie darling is an explicit disproving of this claim. We have Minecraft, factorio, cruelty squad which is entirely built around being horrible to look at but fun to play, an entire genre of "old" looking games that don't actually look old. There's even an entire world of games that look good with assets that you can buy on an open market for a few dollars each.
You're not wrong. But if I'm paying $70 for a game, I'm definitely going to be annoyed if the trees look like they were pulled from Ocarina of Time.
I wouldn’t mind if the game was fun. Many of my favorite games to this day have terrible graphics. A nice side effect of simple 3D forms or even 2D games is that you also don’t require a massively expensive GPU or even a dedicated GPU at all in order to play them.
>> Modern games are just way more complicated and all the assets have to be a lot higher quality. The assets especially just take a lot more work to do.
I mean… if this is the case, how did Vampire Survivors become a huge hit and win multiple game of the year awards, and result in countless clones?
I mean… if this is the case, how did Vampire Survivors become a huge hit and win multiple game of the year awards, and result in countless clones?
I call this "throwing cards in a hat phenomena".
Even if we have brain-interface full immersion virtual reality, you can still have fun throwing cards into a hat. In fact you will prefer it.
Games are like food rather than cars. In food, high quality food doesn't really push out low quality food. Even a billionaire will want a grilled cheese sandwich sometime. While in cars, you can say that in general people would like the more expensive cars rather than cheaper ones.
To me this puts a hard limit on upside of quality for games. It doesn't matter how many thousands of hours of dialogue you have voiced and motion captured if a vampire survivors could always eat your lunch.
Even if we have brain-interface full immersion virtual reality, you can still have fun throwing cards into a hat. In fact you will prefer it.
Games are like food rather than cars. In food, high quality food doesn't really push out low quality food. Even a billionaire will want a grilled cheese sandwich sometime. While in cars, you can say that in general people would like the more expensive cars rather than cheaper ones.
To me this puts a hard limit on upside of quality for games. It doesn't matter how many thousands of hours of dialogue you have voiced and motion captured if a vampire survivors could always eat your lunch.
Problem with something like Vampire Survivors is that the quality of game you make has very little to do with its popularity. Even poncle (the guy who made VS) admits this as there were many very similar games before VS and many after it. Some of those are objectively better video games but just never got popular. VS is basically an indie movie becoming a mainstream hit equivalent of video games.
This is very different to something like Call of Duty, Diablo, The Last of Us, etc where you put a lot more money into the game and if you actually make a good game (and fund a large marketing budget) it will most likely sell well. Same recipe works for Disney and other large movie studios.
Basically if you went to watch the next Marvel movie and you were greeted with $50 000 budged indie movie special effects and the no big name cast it gets you would you be a satisfied customer? (and you were expecting Marvel movie special effects and big star actors)
And something like Call of Duty makes more money every month then Vampire Survivors has made in the ~1 year it has existed.
This is very different to something like Call of Duty, Diablo, The Last of Us, etc where you put a lot more money into the game and if you actually make a good game (and fund a large marketing budget) it will most likely sell well. Same recipe works for Disney and other large movie studios.
Basically if you went to watch the next Marvel movie and you were greeted with $50 000 budged indie movie special effects and the no big name cast it gets you would you be a satisfied customer? (and you were expecting Marvel movie special effects and big star actors)
And something like Call of Duty makes more money every month then Vampire Survivors has made in the ~1 year it has existed.
* Success often brings bureaucracy to protect against losing what you've got going for you
* The bureaucracy drives away the types of misfit maniacs that build incredible and unique products.
* You're left with people more worried about fucking up then they are about building something awesome.
* The bureaucracy drives away the types of misfit maniacs that build incredible and unique products.
* You're left with people more worried about fucking up then they are about building something awesome.
Yeah, just take a look at Hearthstone.
It was developed by a small independent team within Blizzard who iterated like crazy and created prototypes with Adobe Flash. At one point they transferred basically the entire team to work on finishing StarCraft 2 temporarily and left the two principal game designers to continue iterating for 10 months.
Hearthstone ended up being a smash hit and their first properly new game since they released World of Warcraft. All because they gave a small creative team the freedom to explore those ideas.
It was developed by a small independent team within Blizzard who iterated like crazy and created prototypes with Adobe Flash. At one point they transferred basically the entire team to work on finishing StarCraft 2 temporarily and left the two principal game designers to continue iterating for 10 months.
Hearthstone ended up being a smash hit and their first properly new game since they released World of Warcraft. All because they gave a small creative team the freedom to explore those ideas.
How do you reconcile this belief with big tech companies being some of the largest bureaucracies on Earth, yet they continually build incredible and unique products?
What big tech company built a unique product well after they were big?
* Google is still mostly search
* Amazon is still mostly an online store (small exception with AWS, but that was charcoal[0])
* Meta is still mostly facebook (unique products were acquired)
etc.
0 - https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...
* Google is still mostly search
* Amazon is still mostly an online store (small exception with AWS, but that was charcoal[0])
* Meta is still mostly facebook (unique products were acquired)
etc.
0 - https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...
> Amazon is still mostly an online store (small exception with AWS, but that was charcoal[0])
What? I would express the opposite of this sentiment. Amazon is mostly AWS. Their online store's profit pales in comparison to AWS.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/07/07/aws-chief-says-ama...
> Amazon overall generated $24.8 billion in operating profits in 2021, and AWS was responsible for $18.5 billion (or 74%) of it. Basically, a business segment that contributes 14% of overall revenue is generating roughly three-quarters of Amazon's total operating profits.
What? I would express the opposite of this sentiment. Amazon is mostly AWS. Their online store's profit pales in comparison to AWS.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/07/07/aws-chief-says-ama...
> Amazon overall generated $24.8 billion in operating profits in 2021, and AWS was responsible for $18.5 billion (or 74%) of it. Basically, a business segment that contributes 14% of overall revenue is generating roughly three-quarters of Amazon's total operating profits.
That's because Amazon's strategy was to not focus on profits in the first place.
https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/annual/2...
https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/annual/2...
Doesn't Amazon bucket their store ads (sponsored listings) under AWS?
Right, I'm saying AWS is an outlier.
When I consider that this turnaround seems to have happened right after they were acquired by Activision, it becomes less of a mystery. I suspect many of those original few hundred employees didn't stick around after their employer suddenly changed and those who left would have primarily been the most influential Blizzard people. There really is no "Blizzard" anymore except as it's tacked on to "Activision-".
I got a feeling developers nowadays are so much less efficient than 10-20 years ago.
The tools are so bloated and arcane compared to the can-do approach.
Also agile messes up productivity alot due to its inflexible and process heavy nature.
The tools are so bloated and arcane compared to the can-do approach.
Also agile messes up productivity alot due to its inflexible and process heavy nature.
Producing game assets of the quality expected nowadays takes a lot of time.
I think that's a big element of this. The sort of quality bar we see in StarCraft or WarCraft III would come across as kit-bashing or stylized low-budget indie today. Shipping a AAA-style game in a timely fashion needs a larger production process than earlier works.
The sort of issues around engineering and linked-lists[1] in the original StarCraft wouldn't really be an issue today. Teams are operating in a very different way.
[1] https://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/tough-times-on-the-road-to-...
The sort of issues around engineering and linked-lists[1] in the original StarCraft wouldn't really be an issue today. Teams are operating in a very different way.
[1] https://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/tough-times-on-the-road-to-...
Ye that's true.
> and turning the beloved Diablo into a cash-grab pay-to-win mobile game.
A decision which has made them a metric shit-ton of money. Why would they stop when they've found a winning formula? And why would Microsoft decide to stop such an easy revenue stream? Sure the Diablo name is being dragged through the mud (among a particular demographic, at least) but the consequences for that are years or even decades away. If anything, "cleaning up shop" might mean shutting down the less profitable divisions - something Blizzard has been actively doing anyway.
> This will probably lead to Activision-Blizzard continuing on its previous, doomed trajectory that it was on back in 2021.
Maybe their trajectory is doomed when measured in decades. Right now they're printing cash. I think they're happy to abandon their legacy "core" audience in exchange for the gacha whales that will pay them multiples more for a cheaper-to-make experience.
I realize that a lot of us grew up with Blizzard games, I myself have all the CE boxes they shipped since Warcraft III. But the people who made those experiences are generally long gone. A change of ownership is unlikely to radically change priorities or bring back the magic.
A decision which has made them a metric shit-ton of money. Why would they stop when they've found a winning formula? And why would Microsoft decide to stop such an easy revenue stream? Sure the Diablo name is being dragged through the mud (among a particular demographic, at least) but the consequences for that are years or even decades away. If anything, "cleaning up shop" might mean shutting down the less profitable divisions - something Blizzard has been actively doing anyway.
> This will probably lead to Activision-Blizzard continuing on its previous, doomed trajectory that it was on back in 2021.
Maybe their trajectory is doomed when measured in decades. Right now they're printing cash. I think they're happy to abandon their legacy "core" audience in exchange for the gacha whales that will pay them multiples more for a cheaper-to-make experience.
I realize that a lot of us grew up with Blizzard games, I myself have all the CE boxes they shipped since Warcraft III. But the people who made those experiences are generally long gone. A change of ownership is unlikely to radically change priorities or bring back the magic.
To be fair, looking at how both Diablo 4 (PC/Consoles) and Diablo Immortal (Mobile) are doing today, they seem to be on the way to capture both audiences with solid products in either side.
Mobile gaming industry sucks so much, D:I is actually a good product there. It offers so much more than your regular ad-infested crap with "recharge energy" mechanics at the very least. It might be the worst compared to what is available on PC/consoles, but those are different audiences. For the more informed consumers Blizzard has Diablo 4, where they seem to restrain greed to somewhat acceptable levels.
Yes they've fumbled with their PR back then, might've made one of the worst presentations in industry history (look at Bethesda & Fallout Shelter and see it being masterfully done) and generally been incompetent in a few of their recent titles (W3: Reforged and OW2 comes first into mind), still, looking at it today, Diablo as a franchise looks like a right step than otherwise.
Mobile gaming industry sucks so much, D:I is actually a good product there. It offers so much more than your regular ad-infested crap with "recharge energy" mechanics at the very least. It might be the worst compared to what is available on PC/consoles, but those are different audiences. For the more informed consumers Blizzard has Diablo 4, where they seem to restrain greed to somewhat acceptable levels.
Yes they've fumbled with their PR back then, might've made one of the worst presentations in industry history (look at Bethesda & Fallout Shelter and see it being masterfully done) and generally been incompetent in a few of their recent titles (W3: Reforged and OW2 comes first into mind), still, looking at it today, Diablo as a franchise looks like a right step than otherwise.
If you wanna play devil's advocate, at least try to answer the concerns voiced by the watchdog.
The concern is not who can develop the existing IPs the best or if Activision/Blizzard will continue to exist. The concern is that Microsoft already has a strong position, and consolidating it further will make it even harder than it is for new entrants to have any chance.
> “Microsoft already enjoys a powerful position and head start over other competitors in cloud gaming and this deal would strengthen that advantage giving it the ability to undermine new and innovative competitors,” Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting this investigation, said.
If you're still up for playing devil's advocate, come up with an argument against that this acquisition wouldn't consolidate anything in Microsoft's favor, and as a result lead to fewer consumer choices.
The concern is not who can develop the existing IPs the best or if Activision/Blizzard will continue to exist. The concern is that Microsoft already has a strong position, and consolidating it further will make it even harder than it is for new entrants to have any chance.
> “Microsoft already enjoys a powerful position and head start over other competitors in cloud gaming and this deal would strengthen that advantage giving it the ability to undermine new and innovative competitors,” Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting this investigation, said.
If you're still up for playing devil's advocate, come up with an argument against that this acquisition wouldn't consolidate anything in Microsoft's favor, and as a result lead to fewer consumer choices.
Microsoft is pretty consistently in last place in console market share and the Xbox brand is dwarfed by Sony and Tencent (China).
Microsoft's strong current position in Cloud Gaming isn't because XCloud is devouring all the competition, its because the competition barely exists in the first place. Google and Amazon left their cloud gaming products to rot and GeForce now is very janky (but still quite popular from what I've heard!). Google and Amazon's mismanagement of their products doesn't automatically make XCloud into an aggressive anti-competitive monopoly, especially when you consider the fact that Microsoft inked a 10-year deal with Nintendo's cloud gaming provider to provide Call of Duty to the platform last month.
Microsoft's strong current position in Cloud Gaming isn't because XCloud is devouring all the competition, its because the competition barely exists in the first place. Google and Amazon left their cloud gaming products to rot and GeForce now is very janky (but still quite popular from what I've heard!). Google and Amazon's mismanagement of their products doesn't automatically make XCloud into an aggressive anti-competitive monopoly, especially when you consider the fact that Microsoft inked a 10-year deal with Nintendo's cloud gaming provider to provide Call of Duty to the platform last month.
As someone who was using GeForce during the pandemic it is a great service but janky is an understatement. There are a huge number of common "edge" cases I've run into: getting long passwords into games, passing mac keyboard commands to essentially windows buttons, etc. Still, it is AMAZING being able to play any game anywhere. But I'm not sure if the market for these products were/are big enough for so many players so pretty much everyone has dropped out.
I don't like this method of measuring a company's competitiveness with how popular they are with consumers. Just because MS can't cobble together a decent product that people enjoy doesn't mean that they should just be allowed to buy sectors of the market until they have a good majority. Maybe they are just releasing shit products despite having as many or more resources at their disposal compared to their competitors.
Picture this feedback loop:
- Microsoft has 20% market share
- Microsoft buys company Y, bringing them up to 35%
- Microsoft ruins company Y's product with their awful leadership
- Microsoft now has 21% market share
Picture this feedback loop:
- Microsoft has 20% market share
- Microsoft buys company Y, bringing them up to 35%
- Microsoft ruins company Y's product with their awful leadership
- Microsoft now has 21% market share
You can read the summary yourself if you want, but it's 400+ pages, so might take a while. It's here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/644939aa529ed...
Key takeaways:
> In relation to console gaming services, we found that Xbox (Microsoft) and PlayStation (Sony) compete closely with each other, and that Activision’s Call of Duty (CoD) is important to the competitive offering of each. The evidence suggests, however, that Microsoft would not find it financially beneficial to make CoD exclusive to Xbox after the Merger. We also found that making CoD available on Xbox on better terms than on PlayStation would not materially harm PlayStation’s ability to compete. On this basis, we found that the Merger would not substantially reduce competition in console gaming services in the UK.
> In relation to cloud gaming services, we found that Microsoft already has a strong position. It owns a popular gaming platform (Xbox and a large portfolio of games), the leading PC operating system (Windows), and a global cloud computing infrastructure (Azure and Xbox Cloud Gaming), giving it important advantages in running a cloud gaming service. With an estimated 60-70% market share in global cloud gaming services, it is already much stronger than its rivals.
> We found that the Merger would make Microsoft even stronger and substantially reduce competition in this market.
According to the people who done this research (CMA), they seem to say MS already have a 60-70% marketshare, and making that higher via a acquisition, will make it harder for others to enter the market.
CMA of course cannot make competition to step up, but they can try to stop incumbents from becoming monopolies, which is what's happening here.
Key takeaways:
> In relation to console gaming services, we found that Xbox (Microsoft) and PlayStation (Sony) compete closely with each other, and that Activision’s Call of Duty (CoD) is important to the competitive offering of each. The evidence suggests, however, that Microsoft would not find it financially beneficial to make CoD exclusive to Xbox after the Merger. We also found that making CoD available on Xbox on better terms than on PlayStation would not materially harm PlayStation’s ability to compete. On this basis, we found that the Merger would not substantially reduce competition in console gaming services in the UK.
> In relation to cloud gaming services, we found that Microsoft already has a strong position. It owns a popular gaming platform (Xbox and a large portfolio of games), the leading PC operating system (Windows), and a global cloud computing infrastructure (Azure and Xbox Cloud Gaming), giving it important advantages in running a cloud gaming service. With an estimated 60-70% market share in global cloud gaming services, it is already much stronger than its rivals.
> We found that the Merger would make Microsoft even stronger and substantially reduce competition in this market.
According to the people who done this research (CMA), they seem to say MS already have a 60-70% marketshare, and making that higher via a acquisition, will make it harder for others to enter the market.
CMA of course cannot make competition to step up, but they can try to stop incumbents from becoming monopolies, which is what's happening here.
This is just my opinion obviously, but I don't think those advantages particularly matter for gaming.
1. Gamers don't want cloud gaming. Latency matters. Cloud gaming is at best an addon for when you can't use your console.
2. Xbox is the least popular gaming platform. If things keep going the way they are I would not be surprised if Microsoft got rid of Xbox before the next console cycle.
3. Windows being the leading operating system has no impact on the gaming industry
This honestly reeks of an analysis done by outsiders that don't actually understand the industry. On the other hand, this consolidation also sucks to see.
1. Gamers don't want cloud gaming. Latency matters. Cloud gaming is at best an addon for when you can't use your console.
2. Xbox is the least popular gaming platform. If things keep going the way they are I would not be surprised if Microsoft got rid of Xbox before the next console cycle.
3. Windows being the leading operating system has no impact on the gaming industry
This honestly reeks of an analysis done by outsiders that don't actually understand the industry. On the other hand, this consolidation also sucks to see.
Again, CMA is not investigating what matters for gamers or not, but investing what market hold the entity has, if they are likely to abuse it and if the acquisition would make the market hold stronger.
In the case of consoles, their own argument is that no, the market hold would not grow stronger.
In the case of cloud gaming, their argument is that Microsoft already have a strong hold on the market (in the UK) and the acquisition would likely lead to a stronger hold.
Xbox as a console and Windows as a OS and nothing to do with the case they're making.
> This honestly reeks of an analysis done by outsiders that don't actually understand the industry. On the other hand, this consolidation also sucks to see.
Yes, because they are not experts in the gaming industry, they are experts in the industry of businesses in general, and monopolies.
Same could be said about your own argument, it reeks of an analysis done by someone who have no grasp on wider markets and monopolies, but happens to have knowledge about gaming to some degree.
In the case of consoles, their own argument is that no, the market hold would not grow stronger.
In the case of cloud gaming, their argument is that Microsoft already have a strong hold on the market (in the UK) and the acquisition would likely lead to a stronger hold.
Xbox as a console and Windows as a OS and nothing to do with the case they're making.
> This honestly reeks of an analysis done by outsiders that don't actually understand the industry. On the other hand, this consolidation also sucks to see.
Yes, because they are not experts in the gaming industry, they are experts in the industry of businesses in general, and monopolies.
Same could be said about your own argument, it reeks of an analysis done by someone who have no grasp on wider markets and monopolies, but happens to have knowledge about gaming to some degree.
No need to be so antagonistic.
I guess what we disagree on is that conclusion. "Cloud gaming" is not a real market. It's a subsection of the larger gaming market, it will never grow much bigger than it currently is, and by the reports own admission it would be against Microsoft's interests go for anti competitive moves. Unless there's some miscommunication around what "cloud gaming" is, I don't see how their justification makes sense.
On the other hand, while this aquisition might not strengthen the console market, it would go a long way in preventing Microsoft from exiting the market. If Microsoft exits the market that will be a huge blow to gaming, and I would hope regulators can see that.
I guess what we disagree on is that conclusion. "Cloud gaming" is not a real market. It's a subsection of the larger gaming market, it will never grow much bigger than it currently is, and by the reports own admission it would be against Microsoft's interests go for anti competitive moves. Unless there's some miscommunication around what "cloud gaming" is, I don't see how their justification makes sense.
On the other hand, while this aquisition might not strengthen the console market, it would go a long way in preventing Microsoft from exiting the market. If Microsoft exits the market that will be a huge blow to gaming, and I would hope regulators can see that.
Microsoft acquiring Bethesda fixed none of their management issues; why would this be any different? Further, Microsoft lied to EU regulators about what they'd do with the Zenimax / Bethesda acquisition.
> The Microsoft acquisition would have likely breathed some new life into the company and allowed corporate to clean up shop.
This is irrelevant to the committee’s decision. The question is if the merger is too anti competitive.
This is irrelevant to the committee’s decision. The question is if the merger is too anti competitive.
Microsoft needs to clean up Activision-Blizzard, I totally agree.
Two big bag companies, but surprising Microsoft is the better one.
Two big bag companies, but surprising Microsoft is the better one.
Or maybe we should not be supporting horizontal integration of already large companies in the same industry acquiring other large companies.
The acquisition of Bethesda doesn't help Microsoft's case of horizontal integration or even their future intentions with cloud gaming with the potential integration of their existing Xbox game pass service even if they acquired Activision-Blizzard.
Seems like the UK regulators decision in that regard was the wise decision and it was the right one.
The acquisition of Bethesda doesn't help Microsoft's case of horizontal integration or even their future intentions with cloud gaming with the potential integration of their existing Xbox game pass service even if they acquired Activision-Blizzard.
Seems like the UK regulators decision in that regard was the wise decision and it was the right one.
Right, the merge would have been good for activision and microsoft, but bad for the consumer.
The price of ~~content~~ games is too damn high!
-
Basically this, the cost for a AAA game at ~$69.99 is just fucking ridiculous.
-
Basically this, the cost for a AAA game at ~$69.99 is just fucking ridiculous.
AAA games take thousands of hours of labor from huge teams to create. When you consider how much work goes into it, $70 seems like a bargain. Also, if you account for inflation these kinds of games are cheaper now than they've been for most of gaming's history.
In practice, however, many games fail to break out of super basic gameplay loops. I usually prefer cheaper indie games where I have more fun.
In practice, however, many games fail to break out of super basic gameplay loops. I usually prefer cheaper indie games where I have more fun.
There were 70 USD games in the 90s. Yeah those were cartridge games but still, it’s probably the sector were inflation has been felt the least.
In the 90s I didn't have to give Rare $5 to play as oddjob, and another $5 to make heads big, and another $5 to fight slaps only, and another $5 to.....
That's the difference. Those games were $70 because the ROM chips nintendo forced you to use were basically unavailable at sufficient quantities. Playstation games were cheaper despite being able to use literally 10x the amount of assets.
The only people forcing AAA studios to add a billion polygons to every stick are themselves. They haven't tried anything different, so of course they think it's the only option. Meanwhile billions of dollars a year go to people who spent $10 on an asset in the unity store to back up a game that actually is interesting.
Actually, even worse, they often AREN'T wasting millions on assets. Grand Turismo 7 has plenty of cars that are just copy/pasted from the previous release.
That's the difference. Those games were $70 because the ROM chips nintendo forced you to use were basically unavailable at sufficient quantities. Playstation games were cheaper despite being able to use literally 10x the amount of assets.
The only people forcing AAA studios to add a billion polygons to every stick are themselves. They haven't tried anything different, so of course they think it's the only option. Meanwhile billions of dollars a year go to people who spent $10 on an asset in the unity store to back up a game that actually is interesting.
Actually, even worse, they often AREN'T wasting millions on assets. Grand Turismo 7 has plenty of cars that are just copy/pasted from the previous release.
And my salary was $6.72 cents./hr at 16 years old. *1993*
Compare that to today.
Compare that to today.
Was that proven? And how close did employees get to taking over the company?
Employees weren't staging a literal mutiny, I was using the term creatively.
Here are some links about the worker unrest at ABK prior to acquisition announcement:
Activision Blizzard worker organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard_worker_org...
Activision Blizzard employees stage open-ended strike and union drive: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/12/activision-blizzard-w...
Its noteworthy that the employee strikes mostly stopped after the acquisition was announced - seems they believed like I do that Microsoft would have cleaned things up.
Here are some links about the worker unrest at ABK prior to acquisition announcement:
Activision Blizzard worker organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard_worker_org...
Activision Blizzard employees stage open-ended strike and union drive: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/12/activision-blizzard-w...
Its noteworthy that the employee strikes mostly stopped after the acquisition was announced - seems they believed like I do that Microsoft would have cleaned things up.
As far as devil's advocate argument goes I suppose its valid.
But I wouldn't think this changes the opinion on any antitrust violation concerns.
If a company has problems, especially cultural issues, it should fix them or die.
But I wouldn't think this changes the opinion on any antitrust violation concerns.
If a company has problems, especially cultural issues, it should fix them or die.
>the CEO (Bobby Kotick) was accused of permitting workplace sexual harassment and employees at the company were on the verge of mutiny.
>Microsoft received 721 employee complaints of discrimination and harassment in the U.S. between 2019 and 2021, and Microsoft investigators found most allegations to be "unsubstantiated".
Excluding the 2022-23 complaints, I'm just wondering which company do you think is under more "chaos" and on the verge of "mutiny" right now?
>Microsoft received 721 employee complaints of discrimination and harassment in the U.S. between 2019 and 2021, and Microsoft investigators found most allegations to be "unsubstantiated".
Excluding the 2022-23 complaints, I'm just wondering which company do you think is under more "chaos" and on the verge of "mutiny" right now?
If the company is bad, then the company should fail.
:DDDDDD
The gaming landscape already looks like a barren desert. More consolidation will lead to more desert like features.
The gaming landscape already looks like a barren desert. More consolidation will lead to more desert like features.
The trending story on the Microsoft gaming division side is how badly Xbox is doing. I don't think Microsoft is doing anyone a favor by acquiring gaming companies at this point. It's evident that Microsoft is where game development studios go to die.
Bethesda's acquisition is extremely demoralizing due to this. I hope Starfield succeeds as it's my most anticipated game of all time.
Bethesda's acquisition is extremely demoralizing due to this. I hope Starfield succeeds as it's my most anticipated game of all time.
Thank $deity someone did. Microsoft owning both the biggest platforms and the biggest publishers is a glaring example of what anti-trust regulations should exist to prevent.
Every anti-trust regulator in the world would have auto-blocked the merger after 5 minutes of examining the situation. Unfortunately actual anti-trust enforcement seems to have fallen entirely out of fashion.
Every anti-trust regulator in the world would have auto-blocked the merger after 5 minutes of examining the situation. Unfortunately actual anti-trust enforcement seems to have fallen entirely out of fashion.
Microsoft is 3rd place on consoles, non-existent on pc, non-existent on mobile. And this deal would have moved it to 3rd place in publishing.
As a MSFT shareholder I agree. As a citizen of the world I think it's fine to stop multi trillion dollar companies from expanding anymore regardless of impact and I think most reasonable people would agree
If you are a shareholder of MSFT, please tell them to stop making Windows 11 full of ads.
>>to stop making Windows 11 full STOP
W11 is utter trash (as I type this from W11 PC and when I mouse over to the left, it pulls up ads ... how can I block this at my router? anyone know the domains it pulls from. I need a blacklist of all MS ad domains.
Also, here was something that just happened this morning ;; I opened my machine, and I clicked on the firefox menu icon, and it fucking opened microsoft EDGE. It HIJACKED the firefox icon.
I had to reboot... and it added a fucking "search bing" thing to my menu bar... WHAT THE FUCK. I didnt set this up.
Why is W11 making ANY changes to my machine autonomously????????
https://i.imgur.com/F8jdaUH.png
https://i.imgur.com/mBos3Do.jpg
W11 is utter trash (as I type this from W11 PC and when I mouse over to the left, it pulls up ads ... how can I block this at my router? anyone know the domains it pulls from. I need a blacklist of all MS ad domains.
Also, here was something that just happened this morning ;; I opened my machine, and I clicked on the firefox menu icon, and it fucking opened microsoft EDGE. It HIJACKED the firefox icon.
I had to reboot... and it added a fucking "search bing" thing to my menu bar... WHAT THE FUCK. I didnt set this up.
Why is W11 making ANY changes to my machine autonomously????????
https://i.imgur.com/F8jdaUH.png
https://i.imgur.com/mBos3Do.jpg
I am still baffled they even made W11. I really thought Windows10 was going to turn into like... Windows. As in, they just keep updating it- why the hell do we need more versions!
The self-ware Bing/Sydney AI is procreating.
lol no, i don't use windows they can milk it as much as they want
That’s not what anti trust means though. If that’s the reasoning the commission acting outside it’s purpose.
I think anti-trust has been narrowed so much we've lost sight of the goal. The point of this stuff is because capitalism and democracy kind of break down when a single private entity becomes too powerful. If "anti-trust" can't apply to globe-spanning behemoths crushing all their competitors then it's a dumb thing and we should start doing something better
> non-existent on pc
You may want to think a little longer on that ;)
You may want to think a little longer on that ;)
So should you.
Xbox has a digital marketplace on which game developers (sometimes a dreaded publisher) sell games and Microsoft gets a cut of the deal. Microsoft makes money because a game is sold on the Xbox digital marketplace. Microsoft has no (popular) equivalent to Steam, GoG, Epic Games Store, etc., and as such have no (popular) way of monetizing PC games sales.
(As in, we're still talking about a games market and not an OS market. OP doesn't have to rethink their claim that MS is "non-existent on pc" because they practically are.)
(As in, we're still talking about a games market and not an OS market. OP doesn't have to rethink their claim that MS is "non-existent on pc" because they practically are.)
>non-existent on pc
What's the share of PC gaming on Microsoft Windows vs. not on Microsoft Windows?
What's the share of PC gaming on Microsoft Windows vs. not on Microsoft Windows?
They don't get any money from people playing on Windows. All the money goes to Valve
Your mostly correct - but it's wrong to say 'non-existent' on PC due to how successful PC Game Pass is
My gaming PC doesn't have a Windows license because I like Microsoft or Windows.
Written on my Mac Studio.
Written on my Mac Studio.
[deleted]
Isnt gaming a big draw to buying Windows in the first place?
Thanks to Proton, most games work on Linux, as long as they don't have any anti-cheat rootkits.
ProtonDB rates 28% of the top 1000 games as platinum ("runs perfectly out of the box"). The rest either need some tweaks, have some issues, or just don't work. My assumption is that most gamers don't care too much tweak with their games, so I wouldn't put that much weight on the gold category. And when it comes to silver and below, that can be pretty nasty.
And when looking at the top 20 most played games on Steam, there's some pretty big titles missing. PUBG (5th most played) is borked, CoD MWII (6th) is borked, Destiny 2 (9th) is borked, Rainbow Six Siege (10th) is borked, FIFA 23 (11th) is borked, NARAKA: BLADEPOINT (13th) is silver, Rust (14th) is bronze and Dead by Daylight (20th) is bronze. So when it comes to "most players", there's definitely a lot of gaps too.
I have a Steam Deck and I can have pretty good gaming experiences on it. Surprisingly even. But it's definitely not perfect, and one of the reasons why I can feel pretty confident in owning a Steam Deck is that I still have a Windows-based gaming PC that I can fall back on.
And when looking at the top 20 most played games on Steam, there's some pretty big titles missing. PUBG (5th most played) is borked, CoD MWII (6th) is borked, Destiny 2 (9th) is borked, Rainbow Six Siege (10th) is borked, FIFA 23 (11th) is borked, NARAKA: BLADEPOINT (13th) is silver, Rust (14th) is bronze and Dead by Daylight (20th) is bronze. So when it comes to "most players", there's definitely a lot of gaps too.
I have a Steam Deck and I can have pretty good gaming experiences on it. Surprisingly even. But it's definitely not perfect, and one of the reasons why I can feel pretty confident in owning a Steam Deck is that I still have a Windows-based gaming PC that I can fall back on.
Don't know about the rest, but destiny 2 works fine on linux...you will just get banned by anti-cheat. The only reason you can't play Destiny 2 on linux is because Bungie won't allow it. It even has working anti-cheat.
So the only online games you can play on Linux are full of blatant cheaters?
>non-existent on pc
Hmmmmmmmm........
Hmmmmmmmm........
I think I agree, but would this logic apply to Nintendo in the mid-80's? I think that (at least in the United States), the NES was probably the biggest game console, and Nintendo was almost certainly the biggest publisher for it.
Nintendo was taken to court and forced to pay out over anti-competitive business practices. Granted, the specific charge was price fixing and the settlement of sending coupons to consumers was ridiculous, but I could imagine an FTC that wasn’t asleep at the wheel who split the company’s hardware and software divisions.
No, the industry was new and not worth close to what it is now. Plus a lot different, arcades we’re still pretty dominate at that time.
I think I agree, but would this logic apply to Nintendo in the mid-80's? I think that (at least in the United States), the NES was probably the biggest game console, and Nintendo was almost certainly the biggest publisher for it.
Maybe not at the beginning because home video games were new and different, and there was plenty of competition from Sega and Atari and others.
But in a related note, Atari was forced to create a new company to publish some of its coin-op games to fend off monopoly accusations. (It later turned out to just be a shell game.)
Maybe not at the beginning because home video games were new and different, and there was plenty of competition from Sega and Atari and others.
But in a related note, Atari was forced to create a new company to publish some of its coin-op games to fend off monopoly accusations. (It later turned out to just be a shell game.)
Thank $deity someone did. Microsoft owning both the biggest platforms and the biggest publishers is a glaring example of what anti-trust regulations should exist to prevent.
I can't speak for the UK, but in the US, there are plenty of industries where the creator of a product is not also allowed to be the distributor of the product.
Movie companies aren't allowed to own theaters. In most states, auto makers aren't allowed to own dealerships. Beer companies aren't allowed to own bars. The list goes on.
I can't speak for the UK, but in the US, there are plenty of industries where the creator of a product is not also allowed to be the distributor of the product.
Movie companies aren't allowed to own theaters. In most states, auto makers aren't allowed to own dealerships. Beer companies aren't allowed to own bars. The list goes on.
Software is not one of those industries.
Do you think this will actually have a good outcome for UK gamers? I can definitely foresee UK gamers not having access to products.
| Britain’s antitrust watchdog vetoed the gaming industry’s biggest ever deal saying it would harm competition in cloud gaming
Cloud gaming? Really? Seems a bit tone deaf. Is the CMA known for not understanding the markets they regulate?
Cloud gaming? Really? Seems a bit tone deaf. Is the CMA known for not understanding the markets they regulate?
I guess the Xbox Game Pass subscription service can be considered a 'cloud gaming' service, and IIRC most concerns were about CoD vs Game Pass (e.g. if a new CoD game is available on Game Pass on day one of release that would indeed be an unfair advantage).
"e.g. if a new CoD game is available on Game Pass on day one of release that would indeed be an unfair advantage"
Timed exclusives are not an unfair advantage, both Sony and MS have bought or paid for timed (or perpetual) exclusive games for their platforms.
Are we going to make a rule that bans all exclusive games, and force developers to create ports for all system that launch on the same day?
Timed exclusives are not an unfair advantage, both Sony and MS have bought or paid for timed (or perpetual) exclusive games for their platforms.
Are we going to make a rule that bans all exclusive games, and force developers to create ports for all system that launch on the same day?
> Timed exclusives are not an unfair advantage, both Sony and MS have bought or paid for timed (or perpetual) exclusive games for their platforms.
I don't think just because the two biggest actors can afford to pay for exclusivity that means that paying for exclusivity is fair. Would you expect itch.io to pay for exclusivity in order to compete in the games market?
> Are we going to make a rule that bans all exclusive games, and force developers to create ports for all system that launch on the same day?
If you made a rule about this, it would be about banning paying for exclusivity. If a developer wants to make a game exclusive to the PS5 that's up to them, but Sony can't pay them for the privilege.
I don't think just because the two biggest actors can afford to pay for exclusivity that means that paying for exclusivity is fair. Would you expect itch.io to pay for exclusivity in order to compete in the games market?
> Are we going to make a rule that bans all exclusive games, and force developers to create ports for all system that launch on the same day?
If you made a rule about this, it would be about banning paying for exclusivity. If a developer wants to make a game exclusive to the PS5 that's up to them, but Sony can't pay them for the privilege.
If you ban paying for exclusivity, I think acquisitions of developers will accelerate which will erode the diversity of independents from the market.
All the console makers are already massive publishers with many in-house studios, perhaps there should be restrictions on publishers from owning developers. But there would also need to be a restriction on console makers from owning publishers and developers as well, but perhaps some small allowance for first party devs?
All the console makers are already massive publishers with many in-house studios, perhaps there should be restrictions on publishers from owning developers. But there would also need to be a restriction on console makers from owning publishers and developers as well, but perhaps some small allowance for first party devs?
This is more like the Netflix model than the traditional timed exclusives model.
E.g. the platform owner also owns all content production to stuff its channel with content.
In the short term this can be good for gamers (as long as the platform owner throws absurd amounts of money around for content production in order to grow the subscription base), but I can't see this being good for the long run, especially when there are only two or three big players on the market, and no more independent game developers and publishers are left (Activision/Blizzard isn't exactly a fountain of creativity of course, so that's a bad example).
E.g. the platform owner also owns all content production to stuff its channel with content.
In the short term this can be good for gamers (as long as the platform owner throws absurd amounts of money around for content production in order to grow the subscription base), but I can't see this being good for the long run, especially when there are only two or three big players on the market, and no more independent game developers and publishers are left (Activision/Blizzard isn't exactly a fountain of creativity of course, so that's a bad example).
This is a bs argument. There’s a difference between having exclusives and buying up the producers of the worlds most popular cross platform games and making them exclusive.
Fair assessment, but I still think that is tangentially related at best - and only relevant to the cloud due to a bundled subscription.
Cloud gaming is a growing market – they're preventing the deal on the hypothesis that it will give Microsoft a huge advantage in a growing market.
In my opinion, it is only growing because it is bundled with popular subscription services like Game Pass. I don't think the sector has it's own legs to stand on, but time will tell.
The biggest cloud gaming services up until ~1-2 years ago were Geforce Now and Google Stadia (RIP). Xcloud gaming or whatever they call it today was extremely poor (latency and UX issues) and in limited beta, with a very limited library.
Nowadays Stadia is dead, Xcloud is kind of usable under the condition you use a controller (which makes it a non-started for pretty much any non first-person game) and pay for Game Pass. Geforce Now is still going strong, has much better and stable quality and is the gold standard.
Nowadays Stadia is dead, Xcloud is kind of usable under the condition you use a controller (which makes it a non-started for pretty much any non first-person game) and pay for Game Pass. Geforce Now is still going strong, has much better and stable quality and is the gold standard.
Look up GeForce NOW service. It's going well.
Cloud gaming is a growing market – they're preventing the deal on the hypothesis that it will give Microsoft a huge advantage in a growing market.
How does any large company build into a new/growing market without having a "huge advantage"? Do they have to wait until the market is matured from smaller companies before they can get into that market?
How does any large company build into a new/growing market without having a "huge advantage"? Do they have to wait until the market is matured from smaller companies before they can get into that market?
I would have thought the same, but then i tried GeForce Now.
It works Just Fine(tm) (with fiber internet) but guess what's missing: a lot of AAA titles.
So yes, there's a problem with cloud gaming.
Not sure if it's mine or theirs though. I don't have a gaming PC right now, only a PS5. Since we're speaking of ActiBlizzard, i maybe would try Diablo 4 if it were available on GeForce Now. But it isn't and I won't.
Incidentally, I doubt there will be a console Diablo 4 for the PS5 either. They were too far into the acquisition process to not dump non Microsoft platforms.
It works Just Fine(tm) (with fiber internet) but guess what's missing: a lot of AAA titles.
So yes, there's a problem with cloud gaming.
Not sure if it's mine or theirs though. I don't have a gaming PC right now, only a PS5. Since we're speaking of ActiBlizzard, i maybe would try Diablo 4 if it were available on GeForce Now. But it isn't and I won't.
Incidentally, I doubt there will be a console Diablo 4 for the PS5 either. They were too far into the acquisition process to not dump non Microsoft platforms.
> Incidentally, I doubt there will be a console Diablo 4 for the PS5 either.
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/diablo-iv/
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/diablo-iv/
Oh I'm a bit surprised. But then it has been in development for a while, they maybe knew the MS deal was going to be contested, so they're hedging their bets.
I don't know if i even want to try playing that with a controller, but maybe... just maybe. Depending on how predatory the game proves to be after 6 months of updates.
I don't know if i even want to try playing that with a controller, but maybe... just maybe. Depending on how predatory the game proves to be after 6 months of updates.
Didn't Microsoft agree that Nvidia could stream ABK games on GeForce Now if the deal closed? It seems like it could have helped GeForce Now grow.
Yes but the deal only lasts 10 years, and there's been a hold up, even after a couple of months the games are still not on it. Presumably this is because MS want the games on their windows store instead of being buyable through Steam which is already integrated with GFN. It seems problematic.
10 years is more than enough to attract a player base and establish themselves as a place where games need to be launched.
I'm not sure what you mean by there being a hold up. I assumed the deal was dependent on the ABK deal going through, which the CMA just blocked and they've all but guaranteed that GeForce Now won't get Call of Duty.
I'm not sure what you mean by there being a hold up. I assumed the deal was dependent on the ABK deal going through, which the CMA just blocked and they've all but guaranteed that GeForce Now won't get Call of Duty.
Tbh I'm not interested in multiplayer shooters, so they can keep Call of Duty, but a lot of other titles i'm interested in (and sometimes even own on steam) aren't there either.
Why is this tone deaf? A lot of aaa gaming today could be considered cloud gaming -- although I'm not sure of the exact definition.
Consider dota 2 -- it's a service entirely on the cloud continuously updated.
The list goes on with in terms of aaa games offered by either company where the main offering is actually multiplayer.
Consider dota 2 -- it's a service entirely on the cloud continuously updated.
The list goes on with in terms of aaa games offered by either company where the main offering is actually multiplayer.
Typically it means gaming workloads rendered in the cloud, which artificially appears popular at the moment because it comes bundled with game subscription services such as Playstation Plus and Xbox Game Pass - but as Stadia's failure would seem to indicate, nobody wants to pay for a dedicated cloud gaming service. Doesn't seem like a profitable sector of the market.
Nonetheless, my point was that cloud gaming is probably the least concerning part of the merger.
Nonetheless, my point was that cloud gaming is probably the least concerning part of the merger.
> Stadia's failure would seem to indicate, nobody wants to pay for a dedicated cloud gaming service.
Not so sure about this. Stadia was an odd service - even google's own devices (new google tv for example) didn't support stadia. You had to pay for subscription + a whole game price in most cases.
Combine that with the fact that people already made peace with stadia being shutdown before it even launched - who wants to pay money for a game that can disappear any day.
I had Stadia and played from time to time. I know people who used Stadia exclusively. I play xCloud all the time on my iPad... Stadia had a market, just it being from Google killed it. Well, publishers also played their role there - they wanted consumers to buy games again instead of just giving them access to steam.
Shadow, GeForce Now and Amazon Luna are still alive.
Not so sure about this. Stadia was an odd service - even google's own devices (new google tv for example) didn't support stadia. You had to pay for subscription + a whole game price in most cases.
Combine that with the fact that people already made peace with stadia being shutdown before it even launched - who wants to pay money for a game that can disappear any day.
I had Stadia and played from time to time. I know people who used Stadia exclusively. I play xCloud all the time on my iPad... Stadia had a market, just it being from Google killed it. Well, publishers also played their role there - they wanted consumers to buy games again instead of just giving them access to steam.
Shadow, GeForce Now and Amazon Luna are still alive.
I know it's not your main point, but I need to mention that the failure of Stadia does not indicate the failure of cloud gaming in general but the problem of Stadia itself. There are plenty of other cloud gaming options growing every day.
Eh, most people looking at this don't consider dota 2 in the same bucket as the cloud gaming concerned here. It means Assassin's Creed played on Geforce Now or Forza Horizon played on Xbox Game Pass. My very loose definition is that these are games that usually have a single-player mode are originally intended to be played on a game console, but are run and rendered on cloud services and then transmitted to user (of course you can find lots of exceptions). Dota 2, by contrast, is an "online" game, more specifically MOBA -- this is on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota_2
[deleted]
In this context it means streaming the game from cloud (xCloud, GeForce NOW, Luna, etc)
[deleted]
They are known for it but you've heard the old saying... even a broken clock is right twice a day.
By cloud gaming they probably mean things like Playstation Plus and Xbox Game Pass, because, in the higher tiers, they come bundled with streaming access to the games in the service.
You can read their 418 pages report here and see if they understand what they're about: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/644939aa529ed... Section 8, "Theory of harm 2: Vertical effects in cloud gaming services", starts on page 192 and contains 442 paragraphs. The conclusion is about two pages long, I encourage you to read it.
What is your opinion on that text?
What's wrong with that?
Cloud means internet.
It's important to take this decision in the context of the CMA's wider investigation into "Mobile browsers and cloud gaming"
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-browsers-and-cloud-gamin...
They intended to investigate the cloud/mobile gaming and App Stores, plus look at mobile browser competition (or lack their of on iOS).
Sadly Apple, clearly feeling threatened by it, forced it to be stopped on a fairly stupid technicality. Hopefully they will be able to relaunch it soon.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-wins-appeal-against...
If this decision re Microsoft+Activision is anything to go by, the wider investigation and potential regulation coming from it could have been very impactful.
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-browsers-and-cloud-gamin...
They intended to investigate the cloud/mobile gaming and App Stores, plus look at mobile browser competition (or lack their of on iOS).
Sadly Apple, clearly feeling threatened by it, forced it to be stopped on a fairly stupid technicality. Hopefully they will be able to relaunch it soon.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-wins-appeal-against...
If this decision re Microsoft+Activision is anything to go by, the wider investigation and potential regulation coming from it could have been very impactful.
If Microsoft and Activision are both US companies, but have international offices, do they have to get approval from every country they operate in? Could they merge just the US parts or non-UK parts?
Yes, both companies have offices around the globe, with corporate entities all over the place. As those have to operate within the laws of the countries they're incorporated in, if they get blocked by some local watchdog, the acquisition wouldn't be able to be completed in that country.
More so, the merger is also discussed in the EU in general, which is a bigger market than just the UK alone, and if the acquisition gets blocked in the UK, EU watchdog will surely use that block as prior material for doing a EU-wide block.
Hence Microsoft is lobbying both the UK itself and Europe wide for making the acquisition go through.
Of course, even if the acquisition gets blocked everywhere but in the US, the US counter-part can still be acquired, but not sure how much sense that would make, they'll probably end up not going through with it at all in that case.
More so, the merger is also discussed in the EU in general, which is a bigger market than just the UK alone, and if the acquisition gets blocked in the UK, EU watchdog will surely use that block as prior material for doing a EU-wide block.
Hence Microsoft is lobbying both the UK itself and Europe wide for making the acquisition go through.
Of course, even if the acquisition gets blocked everywhere but in the US, the US counter-part can still be acquired, but not sure how much sense that would make, they'll probably end up not going through with it at all in that case.
If the US part has all the talent and all the profit, seems like that'd still be a pretty viable move, wouldn't it?
I don't think the US has all of neither, but especially not revenue. Asia tends to be the biggest market, with the US being the second and EU third. Usually, US has maybe half of the profits as the Asia counterpart, while EU has half of that.
So if the acquisition gets blocked in the EU, they'll miss out on a ton of revenue, for sure.
Not to mention the operational overhead of actually operating the machinery when the machinery is banned in the EU but not the US.
So if the acquisition gets blocked in the EU, they'll miss out on a ton of revenue, for sure.
Not to mention the operational overhead of actually operating the machinery when the machinery is banned in the EU but not the US.
You can see that games in other highly populated regions sell for much less. This is the 7th most popular game on steam that isn't free to play.
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/
39.99 in the US, 22-23 dollars in China and India. In indonesia the game sold for as little as 13 cents a license. It is slightly higher in the EU and UK but by very little. In this case 24% of all players are American. The UK is 2%. So even with a slightly higher price, they're not getting anywhere close to the revenue that US consumers are generating. Russia has 10% of the player population and the game sells for 13 dollars. I don't think the population correlates to revenue when the game in nearly every market is going to see for less, or attract much less players.
https://steamdb.info/app/252490/
39.99 in the US, 22-23 dollars in China and India. In indonesia the game sold for as little as 13 cents a license. It is slightly higher in the EU and UK but by very little. In this case 24% of all players are American. The UK is 2%. So even with a slightly higher price, they're not getting anywhere close to the revenue that US consumers are generating. Russia has 10% of the player population and the game sells for 13 dollars. I don't think the population correlates to revenue when the game in nearly every market is going to see for less, or attract much less players.
According to sources gathered by Statista, Asia Pacific is the largest market for gaming: https://www.statista.com/statistics/539572/games-market-reve...
(in billion U.S. dollars)
- Asia Pacific - 87.9
- North America - 48.4
- Europe - 32.9
- Latin America - 8.4
- Middle East & Africa - 6.8
(in billion U.S. dollars)
- Asia Pacific - 87.9
- North America - 48.4
- Europe - 32.9
- Latin America - 8.4
- Middle East & Africa - 6.8
That’s not the question. The question is what share of revenue it is for Activision.
Edit: found the numbers here https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
Americas: 1,211
Europe and Middle East: 742
Asia Pacific: 381
Total: 2,334
So Asia is 16%.
Edit: found the numbers here https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
Americas: 1,211
Europe and Middle East: 742
Asia Pacific: 381
Total: 2,334
So Asia is 16%.
> Usually, US has maybe half of the profits as the Asia counterpart, while EU has half of that.
But is this actually the case with Activision? Aren’t most of their games banned in China (this shrinking the Asian audience massively) and don’t they charge a lot less?
But is this actually the case with Activision? Aren’t most of their games banned in China (this shrinking the Asian audience massively) and don’t they charge a lot less?
Some of Microsoft's top game development studios, specifically right now, Rare and Playground Games are based in the UK and contribute at least some of the profit and arguably a lot of talent.
(Microsoft has a really interesting history of UK game development teams, going way back, including ones they ultimately shut down such as Lionhead.)
(Microsoft has a really interesting history of UK game development teams, going way back, including ones they ultimately shut down such as Lionhead.)
One would think the US part owns all of the IPs as well.
Seems like the main thing of value at this point. It would be great to get rid of the toxic bureaucracy milking the IP.
Why would the US part ha e all of the talent? Are/were Activision's development teams based solely in the US? I thought they had devs elsewhere too.
Might make sense if their EU/UK offices were mostly admin.
Might make sense if their EU/UK offices were mostly admin.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6448f377814c6...
> Why did we review this merger?
> 28. The CMA’s primary duty is to seek to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. It has a duty to investigate mergers that could raise competition concerns in the UK, provided it has jurisdiction to do so.
> 29. Microsoft announced in January 2022 that it had agreed to acquire Activision for a purchase price of USD 68.7 billion. The Merger was conditional on receiving merger control clearance from several global competition agencies, including the CMA.
> 30. While both Microsoft and Activision are US-based entities, the question for the CMA is whether the Merger may have an impact on competition in the UK. This link to the UK can be established based on the turnover of the business being acquired in the UK (ie whether the UK turnover of that business is more than £70 million). In this case, we concluded that the CMA had jurisdiction to review this Merger because Activision met that threshold in FY2021.
You can read the full case here: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/microsoft-slash-activision-bliz... Microsoft and Activision/Blizzard decided themselves to seek the approval of the CMA.
The CMA's final decision is a 418 pages-long report. I doubt any of the commenters here have read it before throwing in their opinion about the case or the decision.
> Why did we review this merger?
> 28. The CMA’s primary duty is to seek to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. It has a duty to investigate mergers that could raise competition concerns in the UK, provided it has jurisdiction to do so.
> 29. Microsoft announced in January 2022 that it had agreed to acquire Activision for a purchase price of USD 68.7 billion. The Merger was conditional on receiving merger control clearance from several global competition agencies, including the CMA.
> 30. While both Microsoft and Activision are US-based entities, the question for the CMA is whether the Merger may have an impact on competition in the UK. This link to the UK can be established based on the turnover of the business being acquired in the UK (ie whether the UK turnover of that business is more than £70 million). In this case, we concluded that the CMA had jurisdiction to review this Merger because Activision met that threshold in FY2021.
You can read the full case here: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/microsoft-slash-activision-bliz... Microsoft and Activision/Blizzard decided themselves to seek the approval of the CMA.
The CMA's final decision is a 418 pages-long report. I doubt any of the commenters here have read it before throwing in their opinion about the case or the decision.
You don’t have to read 418 pages to have an opinion.
You can have any opinion you want. But it may not be worth much.
Yes actually. When IBM acquired Red Hat there was some last-minute hijinx involving getting Brazilian (IIRC) regulatory approval.
In general I agree that Big Tech is too big or is in some way anticompetitive; In this case however there is no threat in my opinion. Video games are not a utility and have no control over utilities unlike eg. Amazon (where we can debate what control Amazon has). That to me is the most important factor. Besides that point, there is no inherent anticompetitive element to one company owning a large portion of the video game market because it does not prevent others from competing. Anyone can make their own game, and indie games succeed year after year, even if 99% fail.
The real issue is tying computers to software. Computers and software need to be considered two markets. Computers are a utility, whereas software is sometimes a utility. But by tying software and computers, these tying companies use their software to be anticompetitive in the hardware market. That is, any software which does not run on an untied hardware system is anticompetitive even if it has procompetitive effects. All this is to say that we need the Open App Markets Act to pass.
(This is all ignoring the OS market and the hardware and software tying that exists in it, which is more difficult to discus, but in my opinion system calls are anticompetitive as well by nature with the exception of a theoretical standardized set of system calls.)
The real issue is tying computers to software. Computers and software need to be considered two markets. Computers are a utility, whereas software is sometimes a utility. But by tying software and computers, these tying companies use their software to be anticompetitive in the hardware market. That is, any software which does not run on an untied hardware system is anticompetitive even if it has procompetitive effects. All this is to say that we need the Open App Markets Act to pass.
(This is all ignoring the OS market and the hardware and software tying that exists in it, which is more difficult to discus, but in my opinion system calls are anticompetitive as well by nature with the exception of a theoretical standardized set of system calls.)
> Video games are not a utility and have no control over utilities
This is true, but the laws around this don't only apply to utilities. In fact, they don't fully apply there at all (but I'll circle back to that).
As a big example, look at movie production companies and theater chains. Way back when, lots of the most popular chains were owned by production companies. So if you wanted to see certain movies, they were only available at the theaters owned by the companies that produced the film.
Sounds a lot like what we've seen in video games for years now, where lots of AAA games are exclusive on Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo (biggest example), or PC. And let's not forget MacOS and even Linux. Pretty much only the roughly equivalent spread of so many platforms has forced the big publishers to largely do multi-platform releases of popular titles. Let Microsoft own Activision-Blizzard and we could be seeing lots of existing titles and new ones be PC and Xbox only.
In regards to the big utilities, the last major one of those to be broken up was AT&T in the 80's. But beyond that, most of the major utilities can't really be "broken up" because of what they do. Power generation, water, and sewage. Those all require shared public infrastructure for the most part. Because of that, small pure commercial enterprises aren't possible. But for the most part the companies that provide those services are still commercial entities, but they have a few extra layers of government oversight that notionally should be monitoring them for good governance and civic oversight. Sadly we see where that falls apart like in Flint, MI.
Only didn't mention trash/recycling pickup because that's a lot more flexible. Much easier to have competing services, although in places like SF we only have Recology.
This is true, but the laws around this don't only apply to utilities. In fact, they don't fully apply there at all (but I'll circle back to that).
As a big example, look at movie production companies and theater chains. Way back when, lots of the most popular chains were owned by production companies. So if you wanted to see certain movies, they were only available at the theaters owned by the companies that produced the film.
Sounds a lot like what we've seen in video games for years now, where lots of AAA games are exclusive on Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo (biggest example), or PC. And let's not forget MacOS and even Linux. Pretty much only the roughly equivalent spread of so many platforms has forced the big publishers to largely do multi-platform releases of popular titles. Let Microsoft own Activision-Blizzard and we could be seeing lots of existing titles and new ones be PC and Xbox only.
In regards to the big utilities, the last major one of those to be broken up was AT&T in the 80's. But beyond that, most of the major utilities can't really be "broken up" because of what they do. Power generation, water, and sewage. Those all require shared public infrastructure for the most part. Because of that, small pure commercial enterprises aren't possible. But for the most part the companies that provide those services are still commercial entities, but they have a few extra layers of government oversight that notionally should be monitoring them for good governance and civic oversight. Sadly we see where that falls apart like in Flint, MI.
Only didn't mention trash/recycling pickup because that's a lot more flexible. Much easier to have competing services, although in places like SF we only have Recology.
Anti-competition bodies are designed to regulate more than just utilities.
Are you really saying that Microsoft can't exert undue influence on all other games and software studios to unfairly compete in the gaming segment... even though they would be controlling the operating system developed on and targetted to... let alone their extensive cloud and console providings that they could simply deny to the competition?
In such a landscape, indie devs would be powerless.
Are you really saying that Microsoft can't exert undue influence on all other games and software studios to unfairly compete in the gaming segment... even though they would be controlling the operating system developed on and targetted to... let alone their extensive cloud and console providings that they could simply deny to the competition?
In such a landscape, indie devs would be powerless.
>Anti-competition bodies are designed to regulate more than just utilities.
I was looking for a better word than "utility" but couldn't think of one. What I mean is that games are unimportant. Grain is a "utility" for me as are computers ect. And I don't think it matters what Anti-competition bodies are "designed" to regulated as I am already giving my own opinion on what I think they should do so for me this isn't a such an important point.
>even though they would be controlling the operating system developed on and targetted to...
That is the issue exactly, which was my whole point. It's an issue irrespective of whether they have 1% or 99% of the video game market. They are the hardware/syscall railraod by which developers ship their software oil. But large marketshare alone is not an issue, and can be assured to be a non issue with something like the Open App Markets Act whereas in something like grain or computers it is almost impossible to show whether a dominant company has used their monopoly to hurt competition. If we just give some basic rules as to allowing users to decide how to use their computers we won't need to care about how large any video game company is.
I was looking for a better word than "utility" but couldn't think of one. What I mean is that games are unimportant. Grain is a "utility" for me as are computers ect. And I don't think it matters what Anti-competition bodies are "designed" to regulated as I am already giving my own opinion on what I think they should do so for me this isn't a such an important point.
>even though they would be controlling the operating system developed on and targetted to...
That is the issue exactly, which was my whole point. It's an issue irrespective of whether they have 1% or 99% of the video game market. They are the hardware/syscall railraod by which developers ship their software oil. But large marketshare alone is not an issue, and can be assured to be a non issue with something like the Open App Markets Act whereas in something like grain or computers it is almost impossible to show whether a dominant company has used their monopoly to hurt competition. If we just give some basic rules as to allowing users to decide how to use their computers we won't need to care about how large any video game company is.
Honest question, how does this deal make any financial sense to Microsoft if the plan wasn't eventually to implement anti-competitive practices much later down the line? Just buying Activision and then continue to run it as if they were neutral surely makes no sense. That's clearly not why they want to buy them.
I am glad that this deal has been blocked. In fact Microsoft is already too big. It shows in their products.
I am glad that this deal has been blocked. In fact Microsoft is already too big. It shows in their products.
Microsoft also owns Minecraft and they put that everywhere. For Microsoft it is all about GamePass. They want to be the Netflix of games, but to do that they need a large library of games on their service that people want to play to make it a no-brainer subscription.
> They want to be the Netflix of games, but to do that they need a large library of games
You don't need to buy Activision for that to happen. Netflix hasn't bought Universal or MGM. They purchase the rights to offer movies on their platform and at the same time produce their own content via their own production. Also Netflix doesn't own the hardware. That makes it very different to Microsoft, who own the hardware, the platform which you speak of (game pass) and also wants to own the production companies. This stinks of anti-competitive behaviour from miles if you ask me and is nothing like Netflix.
You don't need to buy Activision for that to happen. Netflix hasn't bought Universal or MGM. They purchase the rights to offer movies on their platform and at the same time produce their own content via their own production. Also Netflix doesn't own the hardware. That makes it very different to Microsoft, who own the hardware, the platform which you speak of (game pass) and also wants to own the production companies. This stinks of anti-competitive behaviour from miles if you ask me and is nothing like Netflix.
> You don't need to buy Activision for that to happen. Netflix hasn't bought Universal or MGM. They purchase the rights to offer movies on their platform and at the same time produce their own content via their own production.
I think Blizzard infamously refused to release their games on any other online distribution platform besides their in-house battle.net launcher. Don't know how it is with other Activision titles, but the only way to get Diablo 4 in MS library of games is apparently to buy the whole company.
I think Blizzard infamously refused to release their games on any other online distribution platform besides their in-house battle.net launcher. Don't know how it is with other Activision titles, but the only way to get Diablo 4 in MS library of games is apparently to buy the whole company.
Netflix isn't very profitable. If you have to license content then the content owner is going to continuously squeeze you for as much of your profit as possible (especially when direct competitors crop up --- and there's no shortage of Hulus out there trying to eat Netflix's cake).
You do if you want day and date releases. And Amazon bought MGM and Netflix pays for exclusives regularly.
The video game space has always been about exclusives. Nintendo publishes no where else. Sony just started to publish on PC for some games. What is the difference?
The video game space has always been about exclusives. Nintendo publishes no where else. Sony just started to publish on PC for some games. What is the difference?
> how does this deal make any financial sense to Microsoft if the plan wasn't eventually to implement anti-competitive practices much later down the line
I'm also not a fan of this deal, but I think this is a good question worth an answer. I think you'd need to suggest exactly what practices they may want to implement.
For example it's not hard to see why they would continue to want to put COD on PlayStation systems: that brings in a ton of money. You can imagine a world where yanking it helps Xbox, but I don't think that's an inevitable result; would they really want to give up $X Billion in revenue from PlayStation if that only brings in $Y Million in new Xbox sales? Obviously it all depends on the numbers, but it's an example of why they can still benefit from this transaction without implementing anti-competitive practices.
I'm also not a fan of this deal, but I think this is a good question worth an answer. I think you'd need to suggest exactly what practices they may want to implement.
For example it's not hard to see why they would continue to want to put COD on PlayStation systems: that brings in a ton of money. You can imagine a world where yanking it helps Xbox, but I don't think that's an inevitable result; would they really want to give up $X Billion in revenue from PlayStation if that only brings in $Y Million in new Xbox sales? Obviously it all depends on the numbers, but it's an example of why they can still benefit from this transaction without implementing anti-competitive practices.
> how does this deal make any financial sense to Microsoft if the plan wasn't eventually to implement anti-competitive practices much later down the line?
It makes perfect sense. These huge companies have a lot of unused capital, which they have to find productive uses for. Acquisitions in markets they already have competencies in are a rather obvious way to make use of it.
Internal R&D and launching new products is the best use of this capital (as it’s the most tax efficient), but it’s difficult to infinitely scale that spending efficiently (but acquisitions can effectively be one way of scaling this over the long term).
The alternative is dividends, or the much more tax efficient stock buy back. But long term, acquisitions are better for shareholders.
It makes perfect sense. These huge companies have a lot of unused capital, which they have to find productive uses for. Acquisitions in markets they already have competencies in are a rather obvious way to make use of it.
Internal R&D and launching new products is the best use of this capital (as it’s the most tax efficient), but it’s difficult to infinitely scale that spending efficiently (but acquisitions can effectively be one way of scaling this over the long term).
The alternative is dividends, or the much more tax efficient stock buy back. But long term, acquisitions are better for shareholders.
Microsoft said that it wouldn't have an incentive to withold games from other platforms in 2021 when they acquired ZeniMax.
>"[Microsoft] submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts)."
2023/01: Hi-Fi Rush is exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Windows.
2023/05: Redfall is exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Windows.
2023/09: Starfield is exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Windows.
So yeah, I'm gonna err on the side of "they'd probably restrict a lot of games afterwards". Maybe some big existing properties like Call of Duty might be available, much like Minecraft, but I don't foresee Microsoft-ABK being a win for competition.
>"[Microsoft] submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts)."
2023/01: Hi-Fi Rush is exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Windows.
2023/05: Redfall is exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Windows.
2023/09: Starfield is exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Windows.
So yeah, I'm gonna err on the side of "they'd probably restrict a lot of games afterwards". Maybe some big existing properties like Call of Duty might be available, much like Minecraft, but I don't foresee Microsoft-ABK being a win for competition.
Very sad about this decision. Blizzard has shown itself to be entirely incompetent, and seeing how well Microsoft managed the Minecraft IP I was looking forward to seeing what they could have done with the excellent blizzard IP.
Minecraft is a great example of what could have been, for sure. We're nearing the 10 year anniversary of the Mojang acquisition (wow) and Minecraft is still flourishing and as popular as it's ever been. It's kind of amazing how relevant Minecraft has remained all of these years instead of fading into the background as a 2010s fad game. It's also stayed aggressively cross platform, available on basically every device known to man, including a Linux port that's still developed, which throws a bit of water on the fears that Microsoft would turn Call of Duty exclusive.
> which throws a bit of water on the fears that Microsoft would turn Call of Duty exclusive.
No it doesn’t since Microsoft is doing just that with Bethesda. The Minecraft acquisition was at a time when MS had no good will and needed to earn some, plus it’s a lot of children playing that who can’t be bullied into buying another platform. This is not the case with future releases on games that basically every adult who plays games takes part in.
No it doesn’t since Microsoft is doing just that with Bethesda. The Minecraft acquisition was at a time when MS had no good will and needed to earn some, plus it’s a lot of children playing that who can’t be bullied into buying another platform. This is not the case with future releases on games that basically every adult who plays games takes part in.
Anybody who plays games is not happy about this. Activision is the worst of the worst and the Microsoft deal was a chance to make their offering more refined and accessible via GamePass. Especially it was about saving Blizzard from turning into total shitshow. Id this deal will not go through, nothing will change. CoD will remain trash, Diablo IV will have micro-transactions in addition to its $70 price tag.
Unfortunately Microsoft's overall size causes people to have knee-jerk reactions about them being "too big" without looking into the context: Microsoft is in last place in console market share this gen and the previous gen. In the gaming space Microsoft isn't a monopoly, they are the underdog that antitrust is supposed to product.
Maybe Microsoft should make a better console if they want a higher place in the console market, rather than just buy their way into ancillary markets.
Anybody who plays games is very happy about this. Activision is the worst of the worst and the Microsoft deal was a chance to cement this problem or make it even worse.
Per the agreement in the deal, when the deal closed Bobby Kotick would be out as CEO and replaced with Phil Spencer who is VERY well respected in the gaming community.
You actually have to make an argument, which you didn't.
The argument for why Microsoft would make things better is that we can look how great Microsoft has been handling similar gaming acquisitions, like Minecraft.
Your "argument" though seems to be repeat back someone else statement while saying "Nuh uhh!".
Do have an actual original thought here, as for why you think Microsoft would make things worse, when the evidence we have shows otherwise?
Or is the extent of your argument "Nuh Uhh!" And "I said the opposite of what you just said!"
The argument for why Microsoft would make things better is that we can look how great Microsoft has been handling similar gaming acquisitions, like Minecraft.
Your "argument" though seems to be repeat back someone else statement while saying "Nuh uhh!".
Do have an actual original thought here, as for why you think Microsoft would make things worse, when the evidence we have shows otherwise?
Or is the extent of your argument "Nuh Uhh!" And "I said the opposite of what you just said!"
Poe's law is difficult. I have no idea whether you actually believe that was the "argument" (nope, not even close) or whether you are trolling. I am going to go with the latter.
[deleted]
No, unhappy about this.
As you say, Activision is the worst of the worst and the MS deal was a chance to change this.
You think Activision is going to ditch the terrible leadership and change on its own? haha
As you say, Activision is the worst of the worst and the MS deal was a chance to change this.
You think Activision is going to ditch the terrible leadership and change on its own? haha
Microsoft has done ok with not bastardizing its acquisitions under the current CEO, no?
MS also puts micro-transactions on their 1st party titles, plus their 1st party titles have not been so great since the Xbox 360 days. Halo is a shade of what it was for example.
You really think M$ wouldn't stick microtransactions out the ass out of anything they touch coming from ActiBlizzard?
Microsoft is an American company. Activision-Blizzard is an American company. I get that the UK is an important market but how can their regulators block a deal that possibly most of the rest of the world wants. Who determines that the UK has the power to block this? Can somebody legally explain this to me ELI5?
Their market power is what determines it, if Microsoft wants access to that market they have to play by that markets rules. They'll have to decide if owning Activision is worth more than having access to the UK marketplace & talent pool.
This didn't make sense to me either. Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard should just ignore them, they don't have any jurisdiction over American companies. Microsoft probably has more power over the UK than the UK has over Microsoft. Imagine if all the Windows machines quit working in the UK. Shit would probably fall apart real quick.
I really doubt that it would happen real quickly. but it would be a very stupid move for MS/ Azure
It would highly likely lead to the downfall of MS (in the EU/ europe anyway) with the UK putting massive amount of money behind a version linux. ie look at what google did to linux for the mobile phones! and remember what apple did to unix? .It would also allow the EU to kick MS massively - Germany has been trying to go for linux for some time
even the US is trying to block this merger https://www.eurogamer.net/ftc-suing-to-block-microsofts-69bn...
It would highly likely lead to the downfall of MS (in the EU/ europe anyway) with the UK putting massive amount of money behind a version linux. ie look at what google did to linux for the mobile phones! and remember what apple did to unix? .It would also allow the EU to kick MS massively - Germany has been trying to go for linux for some time
even the US is trying to block this merger https://www.eurogamer.net/ftc-suing-to-block-microsofts-69bn...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Microsoft has practically destroyed every major game franchise it’s owned in the past decade and Xbox only exists because it’s being subsidized by Azure. Very happy with this decision.
Disagree somwhat; Age of Empires would be unlikely to do better under any other publisher IMO.
The whole Gamepass thing also appears functional to me (i.e. I know people who pay money for it and are satisfied, unlike former Stadia).
But I strongly believe that stopping consolidation in that market is a laudable move and am super happy with the decision to block this.
The whole Gamepass thing also appears functional to me (i.e. I know people who pay money for it and are satisfied, unlike former Stadia).
But I strongly believe that stopping consolidation in that market is a laudable move and am super happy with the decision to block this.
It’s nice that this was blocked, but they really should have blocked the Bethesda acquisition. Buying the best selling game franchise (Elder Scrolls) and making it an exclusive is a cut and dry anti-competitive move and Microsoft should have been punished for even trying.
The new Gears of War was quite good, I thought. Nowhere near as bad as the new Halos.
Minecraft and Mojang studios more broadly did great
I'm just glad Activision doesn't get paid out. What a terrible company it has become. Really wish they never acquired Blizzard.
And what a strange end for the mighty Blizzard.
I wonder what the owners of Blizzard thought would happen when they sold in 2008.
I bet it even mattered to them at that time, at least a little.
Yeah Blizzard is doomed because of this block. Activision doesn't give a rip about Blizzard's IPs (there's a running joke in the StarCraft 2 community that the game is being maintained by a single unpaid intern). Sad day especially for the StarCraft 2 community who were hopeful about the acquisition saving their beloved series.
In 2008, Blizzard was owned by Vivendi Universal, which is a giant conglomerate that owns a seemingly random assortment of media properties.
Vivendi has gone through so many mergers, acquisitions and divestitures over the years that I find it hard to imagine them having a sentimental attachment to a particular business unit.
Blizzard has pretty much always just been one part of a larger organization. It was sold in the 90s.
Vivendi has gone through so many mergers, acquisitions and divestitures over the years that I find it hard to imagine them having a sentimental attachment to a particular business unit.
Blizzard has pretty much always just been one part of a larger organization. It was sold in the 90s.
Did it? I don't think Blizzard has ever been in financial trouble, so they sold it just for more money. And we all know the old Blizzard is completely dead now.
This might be a bad time to tell you that they might be getting paid out in terms of $2.5 - 3 billion for the deal falling through.
Good. Governments should be block FAR more acquisitions. We need more small to mid sized companies and far fewer mega corps.
Cloud Gaming is always going to fall on its face, like Stadia, for one simple reason. Latency. It’s bad enough when latency interacts with multi-kilobyte telemetry messages in the client-rendered model. Cloud Gaming replaces that messaging with pumping multiple megabytes of video data to one’s screen.
Do you have a lot of experience with this? I have used GeForce Now to play Fortnite and other games for years and I think it works great. I’ve also used PS Now to play Bloodborne which is very sensitive to feel and timing and that works well too, it actually plays better there than it did on the original PS4.
What about latency, though. Fortnite may be possible but Quake or StarCraft? Sure, on the lowest of the lowest of tiers. People used to say 24 fps was great, too. Only took us 20 years for the masses to catch up.
Anything below 120 feels sluggish to me. At 60 fps local, I move my mouse and the picture is changed after what feels like an eternity. Can't imagine cloud rendered 60 being better. In fact, it's guaranteed to be worse.
Anything below 120 feels sluggish to me. At 60 fps local, I move my mouse and the picture is changed after what feels like an eternity. Can't imagine cloud rendered 60 being better. In fact, it's guaranteed to be worse.
There is already inherent latency in networked games. Cloud gaming could somewhat compensate by having the servers running the game clients close to the game hosts.
Fast paced networked games typically solved that by running a local simulation ahead of the server. The button you clicked looks depressed the instant you click it, not once the server knows about it. In FPS style games your character typically starts walking forwards the instant you press the forwards key, and you shoot the instant you click, not when the server finds out about it.
This has weird effects. Each player is actually playing in a slightly different world. You might see yourself hitting something and they might see themselves blocking the shot, and only one of you can be right. The different worlds will retroactively correct themselves to be consistent in some form or another (depending on the game it might be that the person shooting is always correct, or it might be that the person blocking is always correct, or it might be that whoever's packets reached the server first is correct, or really some complex combination of all of the above). The weird effects are worthwhile because people are really sensitive to latency in response to their inputs.
Even in slow placed games that use simpler networking models, I'm pretty sure the UI is basically always local. For example you might press the button that says "do the thing" and see the button style into it's "pressed state", but the server decides that the thing doer is dead before that button press reaches the server, so it ignores that button press.
This has weird effects. Each player is actually playing in a slightly different world. You might see yourself hitting something and they might see themselves blocking the shot, and only one of you can be right. The different worlds will retroactively correct themselves to be consistent in some form or another (depending on the game it might be that the person shooting is always correct, or it might be that the person blocking is always correct, or it might be that whoever's packets reached the server first is correct, or really some complex combination of all of the above). The weird effects are worthwhile because people are really sensitive to latency in response to their inputs.
Even in slow placed games that use simpler networking models, I'm pretty sure the UI is basically always local. For example you might press the button that says "do the thing" and see the button style into it's "pressed state", but the server decides that the thing doer is dead before that button press reaches the server, so it ignores that button press.
I am talking about input latency. The cloud solutions cannot compensate for it unless they start rendering all possible frames all the time which makes zero sense, nevermind being impractical to borderline impossible right now.
Read carefully gpm's comment, or, I don't know, start playing games? It really helps
Read carefully gpm's comment, or, I don't know, start playing games? It really helps
The display still has to be rendered on the player’s screen for them to react to it. Cloud gaming only increases the volume of data coming down to the client so it seems logical any latency issues would be amplified, even if using a top video codec.
moving the latency to the player client just makes everything feel terrible. its like playing in mud because your actions take 50ms-100ms of time to show up on your screen
Admittedly I was coming in with the same perspective as OP so I wasn’t aware you could smoothly play triple A titles via streaming. No catch, no hang ups?
The catch as stated is slightly worse input latency. You can still win games. It might feel fine to you. But even a practically imperceptible 10-20ms of extra input lag compared to the gamers with their own hardware puts you at an unavoidable statistical disadvantage. You will be 10ms too late with aiming your shots some percentage of the time.
The most competitive games in existence are all online games that suffer from the same latency issues a cloud gaming service would. They seem to get along fine even though they require much more precise movement than the types of games that gamepass users would play.
But moving these games to the cloud is adding more problems on top without fixing any of the latency issues
There are games that on Geforce now ultimate tier have lower latency than playing locally on console.
*reported latency
Not saying reported is unequal to actual on that system, just pointing out the reality, a cloud gaming vendor is saying “this is out latency”
Not saying reported is unequal to actual on that system, just pointing out the reality, a cloud gaming vendor is saying “this is out latency”
No. Actual 3rd party tests done using a high fps camera and measuring time from mouse click to reaction on screen.
What am I missing here? I thought both Microsoft and Activision were American companies, why would the UK even have a say in this? Is it a "if you buy it you can't operate here" kind of statement?
I was about to ask the same thing. Why does this matter? It's like when the Canadian Parliament subpoenaed Mark Zuckerberg- he just ignored it [1].
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/27/tech/zuckerberg-contempt-cana...
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/27/tech/zuckerberg-contempt-cana...
Never demand something which you can’t enforce. Signals major weakness.
That's my understanding too. At the end of the day, I'm sure this will be a PITA, but what stops Activision from spinning off its UK business operations into a separate entity that will not be part of the Activision-Microsoft deal?
Not to mention that the only part of distribution this can affect is the physical one. I mean, if I want to sell a game on Steam and sell it in all the regions Steam operates in, I can do so without needing a business presence in every individual country...
Not to mention that the only part of distribution this can affect is the physical one. I mean, if I want to sell a game on Steam and sell it in all the regions Steam operates in, I can do so without needing a business presence in every individual country...
That’s a good question. I don’t recall ever seeing something like this happening.
Not only the UK government still has a significant power to leverage here, but also corporate doesn't usually want to directly go to war against governments since that's going to be an alarming signal for all other governments across the globe, especially EU who is actively seeking a way to regulate US big techs. Even US cannot protect them without a good justification.
Can someone explains me why a UK court is able to block a deal between 2 US corps ?
How can they overreach ?
How can they overreach ?
Well if the two US companies that do business in US and with US residents, than UK court would not have any jurisdiction. (And would not even try, it's not like they don't have other things to do.)
But in this case, you have two US businesses, that own local UK business and do business on UK soil with UK customers. That is why they fall also under jurisdiction of UK.
MS and Activison could close their business in UK, and stop serving their customers and then they would not be affected by UK courts.
Bottom line is, if you do business in multiple places, you need to play by the rules of all that places.
It's similar how the legislation in lets say California can affect products in all the USA.
But in this case, you have two US businesses, that own local UK business and do business on UK soil with UK customers. That is why they fall also under jurisdiction of UK.
MS and Activison could close their business in UK, and stop serving their customers and then they would not be affected by UK courts.
Bottom line is, if you do business in multiple places, you need to play by the rules of all that places.
It's similar how the legislation in lets say California can affect products in all the USA.
Microsoft are free to withdraw from the UK market to avoid being regulated by UK regulators.
But unless they do, the UK has the right to regulate its own market in the way that they see fit, irrespective of whether that impacts on other markets (modulo international trade agreements).
But unless they do, the UK has the right to regulate its own market in the way that they see fit, irrespective of whether that impacts on other markets (modulo international trade agreements).
The two US corps both want to do business in the UK. If the two US corps don't want to do business in the UK, they can feel free to ignore the UK authorities.
Presumably by banning them from business in the UK if they go through with it
It only relates to their activities in the Uk. MS would have to either comply with any remedial measures or just stop operating in there.
How can the UK prevent two US companies from merging?
Not a lawyer (barrister?) but I’d guess it’s because both Microsoft and Activision have offices/legal entities in the UK as well as the US. I wonder if the decision could be routed by Activision simply closing those offices and exiting the UK? Not saying it should be routed, just openly speculating as an armchair not-lawyer/barrister.
I was wondering this too. Does this also affect whether they can do business there?
it's not about offices, it's about competition.
if the companies' activities affect competition in the UK then the CMA is responsible.
the hint is in the name: Competition and Markets Authority
if the companies' activities affect competition in the UK then the CMA is responsible.
the hint is in the name: Competition and Markets Authority
That’s not really the question. I could claim authority of you and your family. But what is the mechanism that enforces it? Why would you recognize that?
Why would Microsoft listen or care about the ruling? It’s because they operate in the UK. The CMA can’t just regulate companies that don’t operate in the UK.
Why would Microsoft listen or care about the ruling? It’s because they operate in the UK. The CMA can’t just regulate companies that don’t operate in the UK.
Welcome to globalisation, baby. Very few companies are in one country exclusively, and are thus subject to the laws of any country they operate in. That's why Google pulled out of China years ago, to not be subject to Chinese laws (even though they're a "US" company).
For reference, both Activision Blizzard and Microsoft have very significant presence outside of the US.
For reference, both Activision Blizzard and Microsoft have very significant presence outside of the US.
Probably good for Microsoft- the acquisition was agreed at bubble prices, and driven by copying a business that hasn't worked out.
SEA Ltd had great promise in 2021 - they made a hyper popular game and used those revenues and user mindshare to branch out into ecomerce, financial services and all sorts. It was seem as an important part to cradle snatch Gen A before they signed up to meta and amazon.
With metaverse ideas also peaking it seemed like a must do strategy for every conglomerate to get into games. Amazon did too!
In 2022, SEA and Meta are not healthy. Thier plan to invest heavily and get paid later does not make sense in a higher rate environment where the payoff is less than you'd make saving your money in bonds.
Microsoft has a long term interest in games, but it doesn't need to supercharge it. There are better uses for the 70 billion.
SEA Ltd had great promise in 2021 - they made a hyper popular game and used those revenues and user mindshare to branch out into ecomerce, financial services and all sorts. It was seem as an important part to cradle snatch Gen A before they signed up to meta and amazon.
With metaverse ideas also peaking it seemed like a must do strategy for every conglomerate to get into games. Amazon did too!
In 2022, SEA and Meta are not healthy. Thier plan to invest heavily and get paid later does not make sense in a higher rate environment where the payoff is less than you'd make saving your money in bonds.
Microsoft has a long term interest in games, but it doesn't need to supercharge it. There are better uses for the 70 billion.
Probably consumers might benefit from concentration of gaming titles within Xbox for more seamless experiences. But, arguably very destructive in the long run. As this is a major INDEPENDENT studio, not only for multiplatform but also for deciding the titles/projects they produce.
As we see with the HBO Max/Discovery merger, once companies merge, they have the option to close or end projects, that is destructive to both consumers and the creators of those.
Furthermore, these are trillion dollar companies, that are almost getting if not already way past the size of "Too Big To Fail". These companies need to be reigned in, if we are trying to create mobility in the private sector, as well as consumer choice, and avoid monopolization currently already in tech.
As we see with the HBO Max/Discovery merger, once companies merge, they have the option to close or end projects, that is destructive to both consumers and the creators of those.
Furthermore, these are trillion dollar companies, that are almost getting if not already way past the size of "Too Big To Fail". These companies need to be reigned in, if we are trying to create mobility in the private sector, as well as consumer choice, and avoid monopolization currently already in tech.
This is good news. :)
Is it?
Putting MS in charge might have saved Blizzard from Activision. Maybe they'd have brought WoW to Xbox, or done something new with the Starcraft IP. Perhaps even a new Blizzard MMO...
Putting MS in charge might have saved Blizzard from Activision. Maybe they'd have brought WoW to Xbox, or done something new with the Starcraft IP. Perhaps even a new Blizzard MMO...
Activision selling Blizzard to Microsoft would be a deal I could get behind!
On the other hand, as a Mac gamer, maybe it wouldn't be so great? Blizzard have been great at Mac support, with all their titles - except Overwatch - being available on Mac since day 1. But Microsoft hardly releases anything for Mac now days.
On the other hand, as a Mac gamer, maybe it wouldn't be so great? Blizzard have been great at Mac support, with all their titles - except Overwatch - being available on Mac since day 1. But Microsoft hardly releases anything for Mac now days.
Diablo 4 won't be released on Mac either. I feel the days of Blizzard being a champion for Mac gaming have ended. They will continue to support it in WoW and the other legacy titles they continue to update.
I'd be surprised, merger or not, if they ever release any of their new AAA titles on Mac again.
I'd be surprised, merger or not, if they ever release any of their new AAA titles on Mac again.
There's not many Macs with suitable GPUs for higher-end gaming, are there?
And between the move to Metal as a graphics API and the transition away from Intel CPUs, porting PC games to Mac seems like it'd be rather more of a pain these days.
And between the move to Metal as a graphics API and the transition away from Intel CPUs, porting PC games to Mac seems like it'd be rather more of a pain these days.
I can play Subnautica, Prodeus, Total Warhammer III, WoW, Metro Exodus, etc. Various settings all at 1080p on the monitor I have connected externally.
And that's on a base M1 macbook Air with the 7C GPU setup. Although it does have a fan rigged up underneath my laptop stand. Every other Apple Silicon Mac has even more gpu oomph.
Friends with M1/M2 Pro machines are plenty happy with their GPU performance but most of them all just play WoW. One with a M1 Max Studio is enjoying plenty of performance at 4K.
And that's on a base M1 macbook Air with the 7C GPU setup. Although it does have a fan rigged up underneath my laptop stand. Every other Apple Silicon Mac has even more gpu oomph.
Friends with M1/M2 Pro machines are plenty happy with their GPU performance but most of them all just play WoW. One with a M1 Max Studio is enjoying plenty of performance at 4K.
There’s also a simple mod you can do to the MacBook Air (installing a thermal pad on the SoC) which significantly improves heat dissipation - check YouTube.
I have a similar setup (except 8 core) and with the mod I don’t feel any need for an external fan for gaming.
I have a similar setup (except 8 core) and with the mod I don’t feel any need for an external fan for gaming.
Yeah I was tempted to do it to make my fan cooling work even better, but I want to be able to resell this Air soon. It's being replaced with a M2 Mini with 24GB of RAM. Finally tired of the 8GB life.
Blizzard was never really about the high end. Couldn’t have had 10 million active subscriptions on an MMO if they did.
Arguably, all modern Macs (with M1 and M2 chips) have GPUs suitable for reasonably high-end gaming. These have the same GPUs used in high-end iPhones and iPads, but with more cores, more RAM, and more memory bandwidth.
Some of Blizzard’s titles (World of Warcraft, Hearthstone) were already ported to be M1-native. But even the older titles that haven’t been ported (StarCraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, etc) run great despite being emulated. In fact, they run much faster and smoother on my M1 Mac than they ever did on my Intel Macs!!
You’re right, though, that Apple’s attachment to Metal and lack of built-in support for industry standard APIs like Vulkan is an issue (although a 3rd-party Vulkan implementation is available).
Some of Blizzard’s titles (World of Warcraft, Hearthstone) were already ported to be M1-native. But even the older titles that haven’t been ported (StarCraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, etc) run great despite being emulated. In fact, they run much faster and smoother on my M1 Mac than they ever did on my Intel Macs!!
You’re right, though, that Apple’s attachment to Metal and lack of built-in support for industry standard APIs like Vulkan is an issue (although a 3rd-party Vulkan implementation is available).
Fuck, even Torchlight is going PC only. Still don’t know why Apple had to steer away from OpenGL.
It's weird how most small indy titles/studios on Steam seem to support Mac just fine but it's the big guys that seem (increasingly?) reluctant to do so!
Perhaps because small studios start with ready-made game engines that are already ported to Metal?
Perhaps because small studios start with ready-made game engines that are already ported to Metal?
Yes, if you're using Unity and primarily developing on Windows, most things will 'just work' on Mac. But if you're a big studio with an in-house engine and toolset, supporting a new platform and additional graphics API can be a whole lot of work.
People developing their own frameworks make a lot of simplifying assumptions that turn out not to be true, and then it makes it very difficult to walk them back later. Often people get defensive and try to argue that this is a feature.
Leaving out your deep pocketed customers seems like a pretty dumb move to me.
Leaving out your deep pocketed customers seems like a pretty dumb move to me.
But would have prevented many players from actually enjoying Blizzard games. Personally, I am not interested in purchasing an Xbox or installing Windows on my PC, even if the merger is finalized.
Platform-exclusive titles have been around for as long as games consoles, that's not going to change.
It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console. But that's just how things are. And at the end of they day, they're unimportant entertainment products, we're not talking about monopolies/oligopolies controlling something important.
It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console. But that's just how things are. And at the end of they day, they're unimportant entertainment products, we're not talking about monopolies/oligopolies controlling something important.
> It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console.
You technically can via emulation, though how legal that is depends on the laws where you are I guess.
You technically can via emulation, though how legal that is depends on the laws where you are I guess.
That's not true, they've committed to continuing to release on other platforms.
It isn't, though, when they haven't been blocking Sony from making significant purchases.
I understand your concerns in the video game industry landscape, even though I may add that Microsoft may just have been buying out many more studios in recent years.
However, I don't believe that tto be the bigger issue. Let's look at this from a bigger perspective: Microsoft is much bigger than Sony. The western world is very much dependent on this giant. Should it have even more power?
However, I don't believe that tto be the bigger issue. Let's look at this from a bigger perspective: Microsoft is much bigger than Sony. The western world is very much dependent on this giant. Should it have even more power?
What significant purchases has Sony done though in the gaming space? IIRC it was mostly smaller game development studios, not the (until quite recently at least) largest game publisher in the world.
Bungie was a $3.7b acquisition, which I wouldn't consider to be small by any means.
69 vs 3.7? plus the difference on the amount of IP is huge, not in the same league
Orders of magnitude smaller, but I don't think Sony should be buying game studios also.
Thats because Sony's most significant purchase (Bungie) is completely insignificant compared to ActiBlizz. It is also much smaller than Bethesda, which MS acquired without much scrutiny, and before the Bungie deal.
When you look at the numbers there is just no way to make the conclusion that Sony are "just as bad" when it come to aquisitions.
I am however absolutely in favor of Sony getting blocked, should they for instance plan to acquire EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar etc.
When you look at the numbers there is just no way to make the conclusion that Sony are "just as bad" when it come to aquisitions.
I am however absolutely in favor of Sony getting blocked, should they for instance plan to acquire EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar etc.
Well, 1/2 is better than 0/2. At least in this context.
Maybe they'll get Sony sorted out too at some point.
Maybe they'll get Sony sorted out too at some point.
I can’t understand at all why CMA accepts the overwhelming share of the current PS5 high-end game console market for the reason of cloud gaming, which has hardly started up yet, and even if they say “protect the innovation and choice of cloud gaming”, gamers who only have Xbox Series S|X think “if you say that, let me play Collapse: Star Rail or FF16 on Xbox”, don’t they?
Spyware Cyber is the best for the job if you've been seeking for a top rank hacker who is experienced to assist you raise your low credit score, eliminate negative reports, and enhance your credit score. They saved me from depression because I was in a really miserable situation due to my extremely low credit score. I had a hard time getting a loan or simply paying my regular obligations. Spyware Cyber played a very important role for me by assisting me in raising my credit score up to 791, thus I was able to get up again with joy. They saved my life, so I'm leaving evidence of their amazing job wherever I go. They can assist you and are trustworthy and honest. Contact spyware(@)cybergal(.)com, contact(@)cybegal(.)com (+19892640381) right away to enjoy life like I do.
I really wish we could have a different kind of competition in gaming (and some other sectors).
I miss the good old days when everything was on Steam. I wish there was some middle ground between everyone paying 30% to Valve and running 10 launchers at once. And now, with subscription models making their way in, it even more closely resembles the development of Netflix. There should be an industry standard launcher, just as there should be an industry standard cloud gaming standard. As it is now, only one of them is really usable with reasonable latency where I live, and it lacks a lot of games because NVIDIA refused to put their foot down on "we just provide a computer, not a platform".
This competition is parallel worlds that pretend their competitors do not exist and where customer choice doesn't exist (unless you're really not picky about what to play).
I miss the good old days when everything was on Steam. I wish there was some middle ground between everyone paying 30% to Valve and running 10 launchers at once. And now, with subscription models making their way in, it even more closely resembles the development of Netflix. There should be an industry standard launcher, just as there should be an industry standard cloud gaming standard. As it is now, only one of them is really usable with reasonable latency where I live, and it lacks a lot of games because NVIDIA refused to put their foot down on "we just provide a computer, not a platform".
This competition is parallel worlds that pretend their competitors do not exist and where customer choice doesn't exist (unless you're really not picky about what to play).
> I miss the good old days when everything was on Steam.
Well, this is 1 step further from everything being on gamepass
Well, this is 1 step further from everything being on gamepass
From the FT:
Activision, maker of the hit game Call of Duty, said the ruling “contradicts the ambitions of the UK to become an attractive country to build technology businesses”. It labelled the decision a “disservice to UK citizens, who face increasingly dire economic prospects”, adding: “the UK is clearly closed for business.”
What a petulant response.
Activision, maker of the hit game Call of Duty, said the ruling “contradicts the ambitions of the UK to become an attractive country to build technology businesses”. It labelled the decision a “disservice to UK citizens, who face increasingly dire economic prospects”, adding: “the UK is clearly closed for business.”
What a petulant response.
How does the CMA reconcile the fact that Sony also has a cloud streaming service and it is larger than Microsoft? If this makes Xbox too big doesn’t it mean that PlayStation is also too big? And how is anyone to compete against Sony if they can’t grow their own exclusive content?
> And how is anyone to compete against Sony if they can’t grow their own exclusive content?
1. Xbox Live/Game Pass is still a better service, and one of the best deals in gaming.
2. Microsoft already owns (or has owned in the past) tons of gaming IP. Halo, Minecraft, and Bethesda are huge names. Microsoft Game Studios was used to publish some fantastic games in the past.
3. Cloud streaming is largely theoretical at this point. There's potential, but will customers choose a $20-40/mo subscription instead of buying a ~$500 console every ~5 years. I'm doubtful. The math says it's a bad deal for console gamers and worse performance for the top 1% of the market. Sony's lead here probably isn't the killing blow for Xbox.
4. Microsoft could always make it's own games, instead of acquiring them.
5. Microsoft has some benefits with owning both platforms Xbox and Windows that they have never been able to fully capitalize on.
I own an Xbox, a PS5, a Switch, a Steam Deck, a high powered gaming desktop, several arcade games, and basically all the retro consoles.
1. Xbox Live/Game Pass is still a better service, and one of the best deals in gaming.
2. Microsoft already owns (or has owned in the past) tons of gaming IP. Halo, Minecraft, and Bethesda are huge names. Microsoft Game Studios was used to publish some fantastic games in the past.
3. Cloud streaming is largely theoretical at this point. There's potential, but will customers choose a $20-40/mo subscription instead of buying a ~$500 console every ~5 years. I'm doubtful. The math says it's a bad deal for console gamers and worse performance for the top 1% of the market. Sony's lead here probably isn't the killing blow for Xbox.
4. Microsoft could always make it's own games, instead of acquiring them.
5. Microsoft has some benefits with owning both platforms Xbox and Windows that they have never been able to fully capitalize on.
I own an Xbox, a PS5, a Switch, a Steam Deck, a high powered gaming desktop, several arcade games, and basically all the retro consoles.
> Cloud streaming is largely theoretical at this point. There's potential, but will customers choose a $20-40/mo subscription instead of buying a ~$500 console every ~5 years. I'm doubtful. The math says it's a bad deal for console gamers and worse performance for the top 1% of the market. Sony's lead here probably isn't the killing blow for Xbox.But that is
But that is the CMAs argument. That this will make Microsoft too dominant in the cloud streaming space.
But that is the CMAs argument. That this will make Microsoft too dominant in the cloud streaming space.
Microsoft has to be calculating whether to (temporarily) pull out from the UK as a result of this.
Their sales there are in the neighborhood of $5B annually (~2% of their overall run rate). Add a guess of $500m for Activision's UK sales for a total of $5.5B.
The hit to sales would be temporary; the UK government would eventually capitulate as their citizens revolt at not being able to buy Windows or Office. (Yes, there are other options but a sudden loss of access to Microsoft products would be devastating.)
Based on the numbers, it's not clear to me that the UK has the leverage to stop this merger. If they were still part of the EU, this calculus wouldn't begin to make sense.
Their sales there are in the neighborhood of $5B annually (~2% of their overall run rate). Add a guess of $500m for Activision's UK sales for a total of $5.5B.
The hit to sales would be temporary; the UK government would eventually capitulate as their citizens revolt at not being able to buy Windows or Office. (Yes, there are other options but a sudden loss of access to Microsoft products would be devastating.)
Based on the numbers, it's not clear to me that the UK has the leverage to stop this merger. If they were still part of the EU, this calculus wouldn't begin to make sense.
I highly doubt that Microsoft is going to go nuclear to acquire ABK. I don't think this merger is do or die for them. It would also do irreparable harm to their brands, including the UK Xbox owners who would no longer be able to play their games!
That would be a country/corpo war and too cyberpunk to my taste. I don’t agree with the decision, but this is not the way to solve this.
That's the interesting thing here. Unlike recent regulatory actions by the EU, there doesn't appear to be a solution provided other than to let the UK CMA make business strategy decisions for Microsoft.
I don't think it is necessarily how Microsoft will proceed, but it would be irresponsible for them not to consider such an approach.
I also do think the CMA is overplaying its hand; sooner or later they will make a decision like this and a company will pull out of their market. Alone, they simply don't have the economic heft to regulate global companies domiciled outside their borders.
I don't think it is necessarily how Microsoft will proceed, but it would be irresponsible for them not to consider such an approach.
I also do think the CMA is overplaying its hand; sooner or later they will make a decision like this and a company will pull out of their market. Alone, they simply don't have the economic heft to regulate global companies domiciled outside their borders.
MS cannot possibly do this, it would mean giving up any business with NATO. It’s insane to me that a game studio acquisition gets such emotionally charged responses.
> MS cannot possibly do this
They obviously can. They don't operate in every country in the world, and there is nothing forcing them to operate in the UK. It would be irresponsible not to consider a move like this weighed against the relatively small contribution the UK makes to their global revenue.
> giving up any business with NATO
I am suggesting that they have to be weighing temporary loss of the entire UK market; losing direct purchases by NATO would presumably be smaller than the entire UK market.
This isn't emotional at all. I am just suggesting that it has to be something they are considering as an option for completing the merger that their executives believe is important. Relatively speaking: they are willing to spend 14 years of their UK sales to buy Activision, so presumably they think it's important.
They obviously can. They don't operate in every country in the world, and there is nothing forcing them to operate in the UK. It would be irresponsible not to consider a move like this weighed against the relatively small contribution the UK makes to their global revenue.
> giving up any business with NATO
I am suggesting that they have to be weighing temporary loss of the entire UK market; losing direct purchases by NATO would presumably be smaller than the entire UK market.
This isn't emotional at all. I am just suggesting that it has to be something they are considering as an option for completing the merger that their executives believe is important. Relatively speaking: they are willing to spend 14 years of their UK sales to buy Activision, so presumably they think it's important.
> their citizens revolt at not being able to buy Windows or Office.
The UK will probably allow those to be sold.
If MS refuse to sell them, the politicians will just spin it as Microsoft vs the UK and get everyone worked up over “sovereignty”. Maybe even fund and promote a standardised Linux Desktop distribution to replace Windows … which has a chance to spread in popularity worldwide.
Either way, Microsoft might be jeopardising future sales of its products in the UK by going on the offensive. It might also make other countries’ governments warily of the company and impacting sales in those countries too.
It would leaves the market wide open for their competitors to claim without any resistance from Microsoft as well.
The UK will probably allow those to be sold.
If MS refuse to sell them, the politicians will just spin it as Microsoft vs the UK and get everyone worked up over “sovereignty”. Maybe even fund and promote a standardised Linux Desktop distribution to replace Windows … which has a chance to spread in popularity worldwide.
Either way, Microsoft might be jeopardising future sales of its products in the UK by going on the offensive. It might also make other countries’ governments warily of the company and impacting sales in those countries too.
It would leaves the market wide open for their competitors to claim without any resistance from Microsoft as well.
> The UK will probably allow those to be sold.
Fair! Playing it out...if the UK allowed Microsoft products to be sold, but not products from the gaming division, that also might cause consumer unrest. Other than fines and/or preventing sales, there aren't all that many sanctions available to regulators in a situation like this.
> Maybe even fund and promote a standardised Linux Desktop distribution to replace Windows
I'm old enough to have gone all-in on Microsoft alternatives around the turn of the century. European countries have been pushing initiatives like this for decades without meaningful results. Maybe this time it would work?
> It also leaves the market wide open for their competitors to claim without resistance from Microsoft.
This could be good overall for the long term of the software ecosystem, although the sudden transition would be detrimental for UK citizens in the near-to-medium term.
Fair! Playing it out...if the UK allowed Microsoft products to be sold, but not products from the gaming division, that also might cause consumer unrest. Other than fines and/or preventing sales, there aren't all that many sanctions available to regulators in a situation like this.
> Maybe even fund and promote a standardised Linux Desktop distribution to replace Windows
I'm old enough to have gone all-in on Microsoft alternatives around the turn of the century. European countries have been pushing initiatives like this for decades without meaningful results. Maybe this time it would work?
> It also leaves the market wide open for their competitors to claim without resistance from Microsoft.
This could be good overall for the long term of the software ecosystem, although the sudden transition would be detrimental for UK citizens in the near-to-medium term.
> but not products from the gaming division, that also might cause consumer unrest
Some people will complain. Others will just buy a PlayStation. Sony can even "sweeten the deal" by giving discounts on the console and maybe talk publishers into allow people to swap their Xbox copy of a game for the PS version for maybe a small fee, and come off looking like a hero.
Basically if the Xbox gets banned in the UK. It's pretty much free real estate for Sony and Nintendo to move in.
> I'm old enough to have gone all-in on Microsoft alternatives around the turn of the century. European countries have been pushing initiatives like this for decades without meaningful results. Maybe this time it would work?
Frankly, no one has really made a focus effort to replace Windows. It's more trouble than it's worth. But if MS declares war on the UK and Windows is out of the picture ... and once the ball gets rolling and should a standardized Linux Desktop get critical mass, there is a chance it can become an viable competitor to Windows worldwide.
Some people will complain. Others will just buy a PlayStation. Sony can even "sweeten the deal" by giving discounts on the console and maybe talk publishers into allow people to swap their Xbox copy of a game for the PS version for maybe a small fee, and come off looking like a hero.
Basically if the Xbox gets banned in the UK. It's pretty much free real estate for Sony and Nintendo to move in.
> I'm old enough to have gone all-in on Microsoft alternatives around the turn of the century. European countries have been pushing initiatives like this for decades without meaningful results. Maybe this time it would work?
Frankly, no one has really made a focus effort to replace Windows. It's more trouble than it's worth. But if MS declares war on the UK and Windows is out of the picture ... and once the ball gets rolling and should a standardized Linux Desktop get critical mass, there is a chance it can become an viable competitor to Windows worldwide.
Don't be absurd. Microsoft and AB decided themselves to make their deal conditional on the CMA's approval. They're not going to pull out of the UK market. I'm amazed that this kind of take rises to the top of the comments.
[deleted]
No.
But I'd absolutely love to see one of the big guys try this, it would be super interesting to watch.
But I'd absolutely love to see one of the big guys try this, it would be super interesting to watch.
Really? Cloud gaming is where this gets killed off?
I suppose they can't really block the merger for their exclusive titles seeing as all of Microsofts's competitors are the same or worse when it comes to exclusives, but I'm still surprised someone managed to convince these people that cloud gaming was going to be the way this merger was going to bite people in the arse.
I do hope regulatory bodies will maintain these decisions across other platforms as well (i.e. Sony's acquisitions, Epic Games) but I'm not sure that's realistic if cloud gaming is cited as the main reason why two tech conglomerates merging is a bad idea.
I suppose they can't really block the merger for their exclusive titles seeing as all of Microsofts's competitors are the same or worse when it comes to exclusives, but I'm still surprised someone managed to convince these people that cloud gaming was going to be the way this merger was going to bite people in the arse.
I do hope regulatory bodies will maintain these decisions across other platforms as well (i.e. Sony's acquisitions, Epic Games) but I'm not sure that's realistic if cloud gaming is cited as the main reason why two tech conglomerates merging is a bad idea.
Can someone explain how a UK regulator can block a deal between two US companies?
They also operate in UK. Of course if they were "just" two US companies UK can't do anything but these companies also have legal presence in the UK.
What would they have to do if they were to decide that the deal is more important than the UK?
- merge everywhere else but the UK (presumably that would mean spinning off/closing one of Microsoft or Activision UK branch). I guess that wouldn't be enough?
- both companies have to pull off of the UK?
- merge everywhere else but the UK (presumably that would mean spinning off/closing one of Microsoft or Activision UK branch). I guess that wouldn't be enough?
- both companies have to pull off of the UK?
IANAL but probably they'd need to leave UK then.
[deleted]
Good! There is no sane reason to allow Microsoft to own one more company and just become bigger in another market.
It has nothing to do with their core business (which is quite diverse to be fair), and as an end consumer, on average, this would just cause harm long term, considering consoles and gaming market in general.
One example: Call of Duty. Might not be important for many people, but having CoD become unavailable on the most popular console, just because someone had huge amounts of money and bought a $69B dollar company doesn't sound fair and would be a net loss for the industry.
It has nothing to do with their core business (which is quite diverse to be fair), and as an end consumer, on average, this would just cause harm long term, considering consoles and gaming market in general.
One example: Call of Duty. Might not be important for many people, but having CoD become unavailable on the most popular console, just because someone had huge amounts of money and bought a $69B dollar company doesn't sound fair and would be a net loss for the industry.
> but having CoD become unavailable on the most popular console
It would still be available for at least 10 years even if the deal went through.
It would still be available for at least 10 years even if the deal went through.
[deleted]
I wonder what are the actors who invest in small indie games. It seems like the indie game market is quite a complex, with a lot of bad games, but still a few games of high quality who deserve so much more attention.
I really wish there were investors who could better invest in the indie game market and at least take more risks and burn more cash, even if it's socially questionable.
Every respectable gamer knows, deep in his heart, that the AAA game business is a horror show.
I restrict myself to indie games and I have more and more trouble finding a game that I can actually like and spend time with, it's hard to say if that's because I'm old or if I have very specific tastes or if I set the bar too high.
There are a lot of developers out there who are ready to make games, yet it seems the market rarely lets them. Of course, quality matters, but the top reason I want to make games, is because I cannot find games I can enjoy, would they AAA or indie.
Important note: I dislike capitalism.
I really wish there were investors who could better invest in the indie game market and at least take more risks and burn more cash, even if it's socially questionable.
Every respectable gamer knows, deep in his heart, that the AAA game business is a horror show.
I restrict myself to indie games and I have more and more trouble finding a game that I can actually like and spend time with, it's hard to say if that's because I'm old or if I have very specific tastes or if I set the bar too high.
There are a lot of developers out there who are ready to make games, yet it seems the market rarely lets them. Of course, quality matters, but the top reason I want to make games, is because I cannot find games I can enjoy, would they AAA or indie.
Important note: I dislike capitalism.
> I really wish there were investors who could better invest in the indie game market and at least take more risks and burn more cash, even if it's socially questionable.
The challenge is that many games are labors of love that are fantastically unprofitable. AAA games with microtransactions are unpopular but very lucrative.
The challenge is that many games are labors of love that are fantastically unprofitable. AAA games with microtransactions are unpopular but very lucrative.
Profitability cannot be the only motive. A small fraction of those profits could be invested in indie games to diversify and just have "better games", not just profits.
Stop using the devil's advocate at every occasion.
Stop using the devil's advocate at every occasion.
Whenever people mention the awful state of the industry, I feel an urge to point out that the only thing that matters in a capitalist society is what the consumer votes for with their wallet
Ubisoft is far from bankrupt. EA is far from bankrupt. All the microtransactions, all the stupid "big open world" bollocks, all mind numbing grind-a-thons, the sheer creative bankruptcy that AAA games often show... they are what people consistently vote for, every year
In the last month, the last Carl On Duty has made more money than Ultrakill ever will. By a few orders of magnitude. And the same will happen for the next one
If gamers wanted quality, they should have spent their money accordingly instead of consistently buying shit
Ubisoft is far from bankrupt. EA is far from bankrupt. All the microtransactions, all the stupid "big open world" bollocks, all mind numbing grind-a-thons, the sheer creative bankruptcy that AAA games often show... they are what people consistently vote for, every year
In the last month, the last Carl On Duty has made more money than Ultrakill ever will. By a few orders of magnitude. And the same will happen for the next one
If gamers wanted quality, they should have spent their money accordingly instead of consistently buying shit
> If gamers wanted quality, they should have spent their money accordingly instead of consistently buying shit
The key thing is marketing. The giants have insane amounts of budget to market their games to heaven and beyond.
The key thing is marketing. The giants have insane amounts of budget to market their games to heaven and beyond.
> unpopular but very lucrative.
How do you resolve that oxymoron?
How do you resolve that oxymoron?
There are a small number of whales that support micro transaction games.
These games tend to be F2P to have a community for the whales to play with, but the games aren't particularly fun and popular enough to attract a large player base that will pay for the game.
Free things that people play because it's free aren't the most popular, they are just available.
These games tend to be F2P to have a community for the whales to play with, but the games aren't particularly fun and popular enough to attract a large player base that will pay for the game.
Free things that people play because it's free aren't the most popular, they are just available.
Is this true?
The dev studio of redfall was bought by msft, then the playstation build was scraped.
If true, I would have expected msft to be more cunningly smart, namely to provide a playstation build... but significantly worse than the windoz/xbox builds.
The only way msft could restore confidence would be to provide top notch elf/linux builds of ALL games of ALL its studios (not a few games here and there, and hardly any "significant" ones).
Idem for sony though.
The dev studio of redfall was bought by msft, then the playstation build was scraped.
If true, I would have expected msft to be more cunningly smart, namely to provide a playstation build... but significantly worse than the windoz/xbox builds.
The only way msft could restore confidence would be to provide top notch elf/linux builds of ALL games of ALL its studios (not a few games here and there, and hardly any "significant" ones).
Idem for sony though.
Archive with full text of article: https://archive.ph/B5GYo
As a gamer Activision is a shitty big company and while Microsoft is in the same category, Microsoft is an improvement over Activision.
How come the UK has the ability to block two American companies from merging? Why can't they just ignore the CMA?
> If the merging parties were to ignore the CMA's decision they could face significant legal and financial consequences. For example, the CMA could fine the companies, force them to unwind the merger, or take legal action to enforce its decision. Additionally, ignoring the CMA's decision could damage the companies' reputation and relationships with UK customers, regulators, and stakeholders.
[deleted]
I wish the US had the guts to do things like this, but I suppose they don't due to lobbying.
https://www.eurogamer.net/ftc-suing-to-block-microsofts-69bn...
> FTC suing to block Microsoft's $69bn Activision Blizzard acquisition
> FTC suing to block Microsoft's $69bn Activision Blizzard acquisition
This strikes me as trying to mandate a particular market structure while at the same time claiming free market motivations. At what point will big tech structure themselves in such a way as to avoid certain over-regulated regimes.
IANAL, but why would it be within the UK's authority to block a merger between two US-based entities? Could, I don't know, Angola or India block similar mergers? Does every country have to approve, or at least not disapprove?
I think the logic is that they can’t stop the merger, but they can stop the resulting company from doing business in the UK. Angola can do the same but possibly the resulting company will just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and move on. And possibly not so much with India or the UK, which are much bigger markets for these companies.
Given Microsoft's and Activision's respective dominance in their markets, Microsoft could ignore the regulators and keep doing business in the country.
The British economy cannot work without Windows PCs, the Office suite, and Azure and OneDrive. And banning Microsoft and Activision's games would piss off half of the under 30 crowd, and by proxy, their parents. It would also be unprecedented for any country to do that.
The British economy cannot work without Windows PCs, the Office suite, and Azure and OneDrive. And banning Microsoft and Activision's games would piss off half of the under 30 crowd, and by proxy, their parents. It would also be unprecedented for any country to do that.
> Microsoft could ignore the regulators and keep doing business in the country
No it can't. You are immediately cutoff from payment and transaction systems and you have no legal basis for selling anything in the country.
On top of that, there's the obvious factor of being it very simple to completely block you online.
Another example, you may not be aware of it, but many companies can't do business in Europe or European countries. E.g. several US media outlets don't want to comply with European privacy laws.
If they can't do business in a country they can't, simple as that.
Even the rest of your comment is even more ridiculous.
A company trying to force its hand against legislation like that is a business-harakiri. You can't possibly think such stuff isn't looked upon by other business actors and governments.
No it can't. You are immediately cutoff from payment and transaction systems and you have no legal basis for selling anything in the country.
On top of that, there's the obvious factor of being it very simple to completely block you online.
Another example, you may not be aware of it, but many companies can't do business in Europe or European countries. E.g. several US media outlets don't want to comply with European privacy laws.
If they can't do business in a country they can't, simple as that.
Even the rest of your comment is even more ridiculous.
A company trying to force its hand against legislation like that is a business-harakiri. You can't possibly think such stuff isn't looked upon by other business actors and governments.
What MS could do, and would make sense, is to just withdraw from the UK Market.
I know they won't actually do that, but it would seem they would make more money in the US, Canada, EU and other countries that approve the deal, than they would if they ignore the deal and stay in the UK.
Besides which, the UK would relent and ask them to come back anyway.
I know they won't actually do that, but it would seem they would make more money in the US, Canada, EU and other countries that approve the deal, than they would if they ignore the deal and stay in the UK.
Besides which, the UK would relent and ask them to come back anyway.
> The British economy cannot work without Windows PCs
If that is genuinely true, then the British economy has a BIG problem that it needs to resolve. Alongside all the others, of course.
If that is genuinely true, then the British economy has a BIG problem that it needs to resolve. Alongside all the others, of course.
You make it sound like any government should be able to cut ties with any company at a whim.
Microsoft and Apple dominate the desktop market, with Microsoft in a commanding lead.
Imagine if the UK government said no one could buy SQL Server, use Excel, or buy new windows machines.
People and companies would have to spend unimaginable amounts of time learning and migrating to alternative tools while at the same time angry at the government for telling them they can't use the tool of their choice.
The same is true for Apple. If the UK government said Apple could no longer do business in the UK, the UK economy would be crushed.
Microsoft and Apple dominate the desktop market, with Microsoft in a commanding lead.
Imagine if the UK government said no one could buy SQL Server, use Excel, or buy new windows machines.
People and companies would have to spend unimaginable amounts of time learning and migrating to alternative tools while at the same time angry at the government for telling them they can't use the tool of their choice.
The same is true for Apple. If the UK government said Apple could no longer do business in the UK, the UK economy would be crushed.
> You make it sound like any government should be able to cut ties with any company at a whim.
Well, yes. An individual company should absolutely not be more powerful than an entire state. Yes, migrating away from Microsoft would be painful and expensive, but it must be possible, otherwise Microsoft can get whatever it wants from the UK on pains of pulling its business.
Well, yes. An individual company should absolutely not be more powerful than an entire state. Yes, migrating away from Microsoft would be painful and expensive, but it must be possible, otherwise Microsoft can get whatever it wants from the UK on pains of pulling its business.
It's not just the UK. Munich famously tried to get away from Microsoft and failed. The reasons aren't entirely clear to me - rumor has it it's because of some deals behind closed doors - but I think it's obvious that many governments on all levels are fully dependent on Microsoft. I believe China is headed towards independence of Microsoft, though.
> The British economy cannot work without Windows PCs, the Office suite, and Azure and OneDrive.
It would be a pain but they and everybody else would find ways to cope with that.
It would be a pain but they and everybody else would find ways to cope with that.
I work for a non-UK company that has some online customers in the UK and in the EU. We have to collect each country's VAT on those sales.
Before Brexit we used the VAT MOSS system, which allows non-EU companies to register in a single country, collect the appropriate VAT on EU sales, then quarterly send the total VAT collected and a form showing total sales for each country to that single country's tax folks, and that country deals with distributing the VAT to the separate countries.
Post Brexit vote we continued to use VAT MOSS (which has since been renamed to something else that I'm failing to remember) although we switched our registration from the UK to Ireland [1] just in case the UK did something stupid and failed to negotiate a Brexit deal in which they remained part of the VAT MOSS system.
They in fact did fail to remain in the VAT MOSS system, and so we had to register with the UK for VAT. They told is that the tax office was a bit busy dealing with Brexit so it might take a while to actually issue our VAT registration number, which we need in order to actually pay collected VAT to them. They said that until then we should collect VAT, but not call it VAT, and hold on to it.
That was over 4 years ago and we are still waiting.
A country that for 4 years and counting has to tell businesses to not remit collected taxes because that country cannot manage to issue the registration numbers that would allow those businesses to file their tax reports is not a country that instills confidence that they could handle something that is actually hard like switching OS/office suite/cloud.
[1] In retrospect, we should have used Ireland from the start. Getting registered in the first place for VAT MOSS in the UK had involved a lot of paperwork and time, and the quarterly filings required submitting separate spreadsheets for the UK and the rest of the EU.
Ireland registration took a few minutes online. To file we just copy/paste the data from our quarterly VAT report script into a text box on a web form and submit it.
Before Brexit we used the VAT MOSS system, which allows non-EU companies to register in a single country, collect the appropriate VAT on EU sales, then quarterly send the total VAT collected and a form showing total sales for each country to that single country's tax folks, and that country deals with distributing the VAT to the separate countries.
Post Brexit vote we continued to use VAT MOSS (which has since been renamed to something else that I'm failing to remember) although we switched our registration from the UK to Ireland [1] just in case the UK did something stupid and failed to negotiate a Brexit deal in which they remained part of the VAT MOSS system.
They in fact did fail to remain in the VAT MOSS system, and so we had to register with the UK for VAT. They told is that the tax office was a bit busy dealing with Brexit so it might take a while to actually issue our VAT registration number, which we need in order to actually pay collected VAT to them. They said that until then we should collect VAT, but not call it VAT, and hold on to it.
That was over 4 years ago and we are still waiting.
A country that for 4 years and counting has to tell businesses to not remit collected taxes because that country cannot manage to issue the registration numbers that would allow those businesses to file their tax reports is not a country that instills confidence that they could handle something that is actually hard like switching OS/office suite/cloud.
[1] In retrospect, we should have used Ireland from the start. Getting registered in the first place for VAT MOSS in the UK had involved a lot of paperwork and time, and the quarterly filings required submitting separate spreadsheets for the UK and the rest of the EU.
Ireland registration took a few minutes online. To file we just copy/paste the data from our quarterly VAT report script into a text box on a web form and submit it.
> The British economy cannot work without Windows PCs, the Office suite, and Azure and OneDrive.
You're not wrong, but that's almost not a sufficient consideration for the British administration in recent years.
You're not wrong, but that's almost not a sufficient consideration for the British administration in recent years.
I find your argument to be exactly the reason why these acquisitions should be blocked.
And the UK would fine them in excess of any profit generated, and there is the potential for senior MS executives to go to prison, and even possible extradition.
There is absolutely no prospect of Microsoft deciding to try and do that. Nil. None.
There is absolutely no prospect of Microsoft deciding to try and do that. Nil. None.
Because the UK is going to impose extortionary penalties on one of the largest corporations of its no. 1 geopolitical ally at a time when it needs the US more than ever (trade, AUKUS, Ukraine/NATO, F-35s, etc.) and jail their execs. Rishi Sunak would never allow that to happen.
> a time when it needs the US more than ever (trade, AUKUS, Ukraine/NATO, F-35s, etc.)
Putting aside that there’s technology from UK companies in the F-35 (Rolls contributed to the lift fan in the B model, Martin-Baker ejection seats etc), the US needs AUKUS (as a bulwark to China) and the UK’s contribution to NATO (cf AUKUS and add Russia to the mix) more than the UK does, especially in a post-Brexit world where the UK’s influence is significantly diminished.
The EU are also still looking at the deal, with the potential of imposing licensing requirements [1].
1: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/eu-unlikely-demand-ass...
Putting aside that there’s technology from UK companies in the F-35 (Rolls contributed to the lift fan in the B model, Martin-Baker ejection seats etc), the US needs AUKUS (as a bulwark to China) and the UK’s contribution to NATO (cf AUKUS and add Russia to the mix) more than the UK does, especially in a post-Brexit world where the UK’s influence is significantly diminished.
The EU are also still looking at the deal, with the potential of imposing licensing requirements [1].
1: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/eu-unlikely-demand-ass...
The US certainly needs UK help on Diego Garcia, which the UK is negotiating to hand over back to Mauritius.
The US government is also suing to prevent the deal. They would support the penalties.
I guess they could just impose huge fines instead of banning MS products outright.
Sure, but if the fine is non trivial, Microsoft could file a lawsuit. It would also be a bad look for Britain to effectively extortionate foreign firms to keep doing business in the country. Whether it's called a "legally approved levy under xyz law" or a bribe to the government is beyond the point. It's the kind of thing you see in corrupt third world countries.
Sorry file a lawsuit on what grounds?
You seem to be under the impression that large firms can just ignore the laws of the countries they do business in. That’s not how it works.
You seem to be under the impression that large firms can just ignore the laws of the countries they do business in. That’s not how it works.
> The British economy cannot work without Windows PCs, the Office suite, and Azure and OneDrive
I would expect that much of the British Government, including its armed/security forces, rely on those MS products and services. As such, I think that telling a big major US ally "tough luck, you're on your own right now" in the middle of this very tense global political climate is not in the best interests of Microsoft the US company.
I would expect that much of the British Government, including its armed/security forces, rely on those MS products and services. As such, I think that telling a big major US ally "tough luck, you're on your own right now" in the middle of this very tense global political climate is not in the best interests of Microsoft the US company.
> Microsoft could ignore the regulators and keep doing business in the country.
Openly breaking the law sounds like a great plan. Do you have a podcast with other great tips like this? E.g. "just don't pay taxes" or "you can steal stuff when nobody is looking".
Openly breaking the law sounds like a great plan. Do you have a podcast with other great tips like this? E.g. "just don't pay taxes" or "you can steal stuff when nobody is looking".
Taxes, no. But some examples are Uber (vs. taxi regulations), and marijuana stores in the U.S.
It would allow them to operate but issue heavy financial sanctions and penalties, rather than just disallow them at first -
These financial sanctions could swallow up any and all profit from the UK market
These financial sanctions could swallow up any and all profit from the UK market
Microsoft and Activision both have assets in the UK, both sell products and services in the UK, and so the UK has a right to regulate their activity in the UK market.
Similar situation to other jurisdictions (EU, China, India, etc.)
Similar situation to other jurisdictions (EU, China, India, etc.)
So the UK cannot stop the takeover, but it can — of course — block Microsoft from carrying out any business in the UK — and that's, effectively, what's happening here?
Activision UK cannot be part of the purchase deal. This lowers the valuation. And stops activision from going along with the merger in the other countries.
Pretty much.
Microsoft and Activision do both have various subsidiaries in the UK, too.
Microsoft and Activision do both have various subsidiaries in the UK, too.
Is this realistic? The government is heavily reliant on Windows as is much of their economy. It's hard to imagine them evicting Microsoft from the market.
It's not all or nothing. Microsoft will not be able to sell _gaming_ services in the UK. The other things will be fine.
Given time and effort it's possible. If such a move were to be done I'm sure every democratic country would be most displeased. Which would in turn, warrant them all the will in the world to completly reform their dependencies on Microsoft.
I don't see any reason as to why this couldn't happen, the EU has already demonstrated its concerns on relying too much in certain companies, and they don't have as much of a flagrant issue as the aforementioned agressive move would imply.
I don't see any reason as to why this couldn't happen, the EU has already demonstrated its concerns on relying too much in certain companies, and they don't have as much of a flagrant issue as the aforementioned agressive move would imply.
I cannot foresee anything good coming out of this, when a country and a large corporation starts to play chicken with each other.
Microsoft is a large corporation, but the UK is the 6th biggest economic entity in the world. Microsoft is not even close to the economic and legal power of a country the UK's size. And if the EU acts in the same way, as seems likely, there is absolutely nothing Microsoft can do about it.
When a country and a large corporation start playing chicken with each other then the country wins.
In practice, if you're a multinational, doing a big merger, you'll want approval from authorities in at least the US and EU, probably UK (their regulators tend to behave similarly to the EU ones anyway) and maybe China if you do business there.
Strictly speaking, _none_ of the regulators can individually stop a merger (even if it's the home country regulator, the multinational can just redomicile) but in practice they all have a veto, because the multinational wants to be allowed do business everywhere.
Strictly speaking, _none_ of the regulators can individually stop a merger (even if it's the home country regulator, the multinational can just redomicile) but in practice they all have a veto, because the multinational wants to be allowed do business everywhere.
They can block the companies from trading in that country ultimately if the merger happens.
Could Microsoft Activision in theory pull out of the entire UK market and still merge (not just gaming, stop selling Office in the UK for example)? Yes. Will they? Absolutely not. There are significant chunks of Microsoft shareholders who don't want to do this deal in the first place and they certainly aren't going to torch the profitable bits of Microsoft for the gaming division, which has terrible financial performance.
Could Microsoft Activision in theory pull out of the entire UK market and still merge (not just gaming, stop selling Office in the UK for example)? Yes. Will they? Absolutely not. There are significant chunks of Microsoft shareholders who don't want to do this deal in the first place and they certainly aren't going to torch the profitable bits of Microsoft for the gaming division, which has terrible financial performance.
When companies are so big that operate in multitude of markets, yes, and depending on how many and the size of those disapproving the merger gets cancelled or parts of the business split, accommodations for those disapproving and so on.
Which is why such mergers take a long time.
Now, being both based in the US, the US could say no and it would not happen and no need for any other regulator to consider the merger.
Which is why such mergers take a long time.
Now, being both based in the US, the US could say no and it would not happen and no need for any other regulator to consider the merger.
How come the UK is the one that blocks this? Aren't those US based companies?
With British employees and customers.
At least they fired all those people for sexual harassment. 37 fired and 40 written up. Goes to you can really change a bad workplace culture, it just takes 69 billion dollars.
Will this prevent the merger from happening in other markets too?
No, but the EU and US regulators will look at the Uk's reasoning for blocking the bid and it may influence their own decisions.
No. It's only relevant in the UK. If other regulators want to go forward with it then they can.
That's not how it works. Companies with global presence (like these 2) need to have regulatory permission in every jurisdiction where they operate. If a jurisdiction forbids the merger then they would no longer be able to operate there.
Consequently any regulator in charge of a sufficiently important market has de-facto veto power globally.
Consequently any regulator in charge of a sufficiently important market has de-facto veto power globally.
Wondering what they will decide on the Adobe/Figma merger which is actually a bad deal for consumers. Disappointing decision from CMA in my opinion.
The CMA have always done a solid job. Glad they blocked this.
How can they block a deal between two American companies that trade on an American stock market? Can't Microsoft & Activision just ignore them?
Does anyone else think its crazy to unwind these acquisitions years afterwards? Where the companies have already been operating as a single entity for years?
What are you talking about? The deal hasn't closed yet AND was only announced a year ago.
Very unsurprising. [0] This is just basic horizontal integration and this is the right decision to block this deal.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102
maybe the CMA worded it wrongly in terms of cloud gaming.
but the gist of it remains the same. Microsoft wants to weaken Sony's exclusive moat by buying their own big property to make it an exclusive down the line, thereby either increasing the value proposition of Game Pass, or Xbox cloud gaming anywhere.
by now Microsoft already knows they're not going to catch up to Sony or Nintendo in terms of console sales.
game pass is probably one of the best deals in entertainment though, and by that I mean all forms of entertainment whether sports, film, music etc.
but the gist of it remains the same. Microsoft wants to weaken Sony's exclusive moat by buying their own big property to make it an exclusive down the line, thereby either increasing the value proposition of Game Pass, or Xbox cloud gaming anywhere.
by now Microsoft already knows they're not going to catch up to Sony or Nintendo in terms of console sales.
game pass is probably one of the best deals in entertainment though, and by that I mean all forms of entertainment whether sports, film, music etc.
While morally I can agree with it, from a pragmatic and gaming perspective I think this is terrible since it will 100% lead to some games not being available in the UK.
> it will 100% lead to some games not being available in the UK
beyond the hype and the takes, it's probably 0%.
> FTC suing to block Microsoft's $69bn Activision Blizzard acquisition
what are they going to do, ban games from the US?
beyond the hype and the takes, it's probably 0%.
> FTC suing to block Microsoft's $69bn Activision Blizzard acquisition
what are they going to do, ban games from the US?
Why? What other realistic scenario do you see playing out here?
In my mind there is no question the merger of the US companies will go through.
They will either create some other entities to make this ruling work or simply make Activision games unavailable in the UK.
Why? Revenge? I would think that all parties involved prefer money over revenge.
I've been petty enough to cut off quite big deals in my life, I wouldn't expect the moral outrage company that Microsoft harbors to not do something similar. As we know, MSFT did remove Twitter from their ad network due to API pricing changes, price of business is cheap compared to the benefits they got there, so that's quite a ridiculous cut of spending to say the least.
Then again, we know they operate in countries fundamentally opposed to their "corporate values". So who knows.
Then again, we know they operate in countries fundamentally opposed to their "corporate values". So who knows.
I personally don't see how it can happen but of course I'm not a corporate lawyer. The parent companies merge so they might keep up some local branch to support the UK market, but how would that be connected to the parent company? What level of separation is needed, in the UK's eyes? Will the UK Activision branch workers allowed to work with Microsoft US? Or would that be seen as evading the ruling?
Well it depends on how Microsoft's accountants manage the maths:
Hypothetically, if MS + Activision - UK > MS + UK - Activision (assuming it's only blocked in UK), it's plausible that Microsoft withdraws from UK to pursue its business with the merger everywhere else. The UK is a decent sized market, but it's far from the biggest.
Hypothetically, if MS + Activision - UK > MS + UK - Activision (assuming it's only blocked in UK), it's plausible that Microsoft withdraws from UK to pursue its business with the merger everywhere else. The UK is a decent sized market, but it's far from the biggest.
There is another possibility here, which is MS + Activision - Cloud Gaming > MS + Cloud Gaming.
I wonder if MSFT is considering that at all. They obviously have the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if cloud gaming hasn't seen the growth they expected and it makes sense to kill it entirely.
I wonder if MSFT is considering that at all. They obviously have the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if cloud gaming hasn't seen the growth they expected and it makes sense to kill it entirely.
That was also the thought process of many smaller companies to implement EU data privacy rules. It was easier to stop serving the market instead of complying.
I’m so happy
Why is no one talking about 69
mr kotick going to have to buy a smaller yacht i'm afraid.
[deleted]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35711913
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal...